Quote:
Originally Posted by MS Fowler
The article makes an error.
"For many Jews and Christians, religion dictates that the words of the Bible in the original Hebrew are divine, unaltered and unalterable. "
This is not true. The doctrine is very specific and refers to the words of the original autographs. Those words, as originally written down are what we hold to be inerrant. Further, we do believe that the copies we have today are substantially the same as those autographs.
I see nothing in that article that would dispute that.
The art of textural criticism has long studied how mss errors occur, and has established general rules. One of these is illustrated in the article---the longer reading is to be preferred. The reasoning is that it is more likely that a scribe might skip a line or a word rather than add. There are exceptions, even to this, such as explanatory comments ( margin notes) that might have been added to the text during a recopy .
|
Methodical dispassionate response.
Reasoned, refers to established methodology.
I appreciate the answer.
And for those who are interested in the exchange of ideas, I greatly respect MS Fowlers understanding of Christian doctrine.
However, the view he expresses here is different than mine. Similar but there are important differences.
No reason to go into them. Just to let you know that not all believers walk in lock-step, are brain-washed, have drunken from the same kool-aid, etc.
Critics abound but a simple reading of the exchanges here shows they aren't willing to go toe-to-toe.
Only take cheap shots and run.