Can we translate the Bible perfectly? | Daniel Wallace at SDSU
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Daniel Wallace (Dallas Theological Seminary) explains how differences in the New Testament manuscripts affect the translation. | South Dakota State University, 11/7/2018 | View full forum at • How Badly Was the New ... | Explore more at www.veritas.org.
Want Veritas updates in your inbox? Subscribe to our twice-monthly newsletter here:
www.veritas.or...
INSTAGRAM: / veritasforum
FACEBOOK: / veritasforum
PODCAST: podcasts.apple...
SUBSCRIBE: www.youtube.co...
Over the past two decades, The Veritas Forum has been hosting vibrant discussions on life's hardest questions and engaging the world's leading colleges and universities with Christian perspectives and the relevance of Jesus. Learn more at www.veritas.org, with upcoming events and over 600 pieces of media on topics including science, philosophy, music, business, medicine, and more!
Nope!
Citing a non-believer, Bart Ehrman, and a fraud, Constantin Tischendorf, does not lend much credibility to this presentation.
Maybe John was Dyslexic. I'm not kidding and yes I have dyslexia.
Can write new ones
So the biggest issues of textual issues are over rather a number is 666 or 616?? Skeptics reach so far 💀
It’s not even an actual difference. It’s the difference between saying Caesar Nero in Hebrew and Caesar Nero in Greek. That’s what both numbers equal by their letter/number equivalents in both languages. Of course, the early Christians had to hide their anti Caesar teachings as much as they could.
As far as I know, we have no original books of the Bible.
So it's isn't possible to translate them.
We don't need originals if the copies are reliable. Things wear out, especially from use. The earliest texts were carried from city to city and read by multiple people. Eusebius and Papias both point this out. What Wallace here is pointing out is the reliability of the copies that we do have: some of which date back as early as the 2nd century.
@@1stGruhn
The only way of knowing if the copies are reliable is to compare them with our beliefs.
@@tedgrant2 so your present beliefs should dictate the accuracy of a 1900 yr old text?
I would say that is backwards. It is possible to know with a high degree of accuracy if a text is a reliable copy as long as you have enough copies. The bible actually enjoys a special spot in ancient history: it has some of the most copies of any ancient work ever discovered. Well over 5k texts for the new testament alone and that doesn't include the early church fathers who extensively quoted the texts as well. If you include them, the number swells significantly (more than 10k). You can with the exception of a few dozen version recompile the whole new testament from quotes the early church fathers make. But gladly we don't need to do that as we have sufficient ancient manuscripts to obtain a meaningfully accurate text today. Ones that are more accurate than bibles translations made 2-300yrs ago in-fact.
Thus as the video of Wallace showcases, the issue isn't so much discrepancies alone, but discrepancies that change the meaning of the text: none of which impact orthodox dogma.
If the text is God breathed, then we should submit our belief to the text, not the other way around. Interpretation is an important subject though, but hermeneutics can lend insight and diminish plausible viewpoints such that not just anyone's ideas are valid.
@@1stGruhn
We have a vast number of copies of the Qur'an, so they must be reliable.
@@tedgrant2 There is a difference between textual copies reliably transmitting what the initial author wrote, and the trustworthiness of the initial author.
I have no doubt the present Qur'an is a faithful reproduction of what Mohammad wrote. But he was a false prophet and he wrote inaccurate histories. Jesus died on the cross for instance: ample historical evidence suggests this.
Thus, while the texts is faithful to the author, the author is untrustworthy.