Problem is there is no original autograph and to claim an inspired, inerrant author is called apologetics, not textual criticism/transmission. That is assuming something you claim to be true which is dishonest
Just because there is no original doesn't mean we don't know what the Bible said. The earliest copies are easily established from all of the variants. Not one shred of Christian doctrine changes even with the variants present.
@ you didn't deal with any of my points and yet you still claim what you claim which is nonsense. That's why there's a difference between critical scholars that are textual critics and apologists like you. You claim what you claim and then you use it for your defense. Totally backwards. You don't even understand that there is no original and everything that you're going by you're claiming is very close to the original. No, what you have is a bunch of variants and then you can claim this is what you think is very close to the original but you still don't know what the original is. Have you read any textual scholars like Ehrman or Tov on the Hebrew Bible? See, your problem is I went to what you believe at your website and you believe in an innerant, infallible Bible and you even mentioned it. That's total nonsense. Your comment about not one shred of Christian doctoring changes even with the variants wasn't even brought up and I never said it did. Neither do people like Ehrman. Problem is you don't know what the original is but you won't admit it
@ it's explained in textual criticism Books. You said you've read them. They cover it thoroughly. The earliest manuscripts are many many years after the anonymous authors wrote them. We don't even know who wrote them. Come on now. You know how complicated this is. Hell, Tov's book in the latest edition is hundreds of pages 500+ and his other edition which isn't that long ago has more information in it in some areas than the new edition. And that's just the Hebrew Bible and not even the septuagint. We're guessing Paul wrote seven genuine letters. That soon may be down to six and even in the one in Corinthians there are problems. What are the earliest manuscripts copies of you ask. I ask why you ask me that. Nobody knows for sure. Hundreds of years except for fragments and one early one.
Your assertion seems to be "we can't know much about the originals because we don't have those today" and our assertion is that we can know quite a bit about them, even with a great deal of certainty what they said. That is one of the benefits of textual criticism, it helps to establish the oldest and most reliable reading of any given text using the variants.
Problem is there is no original autograph and to claim an inspired, inerrant author is called apologetics, not textual criticism/transmission. That is assuming something you claim to be true which is dishonest
Just because there is no original doesn't mean we don't know what the Bible said. The earliest copies are easily established from all of the variants. Not one shred of Christian doctrine changes even with the variants present.
@ you didn't deal with any of my points and yet you still claim what you claim which is nonsense. That's why there's a difference between critical scholars that are textual critics and apologists like you. You claim what you claim and then you use it for your defense. Totally backwards. You don't even understand that there is no original and everything that you're going by you're claiming is very close to the original. No, what you have is a bunch of variants and then you can claim this is what you think is very close to the original but you still don't know what the original is. Have you read any textual scholars like Ehrman or Tov on the Hebrew Bible? See, your problem is I went to what you believe at your website and you believe in an innerant, infallible Bible and you even mentioned it. That's total nonsense.
Your comment about not one shred of Christian doctoring changes even with the variants wasn't even brought up and I never said it did. Neither do people like Ehrman. Problem is you don't know what the original is but you won't admit it
If there is no original, then what are the earliest manuscripts copies of?
@ it's explained in textual criticism Books. You said you've read them. They cover it thoroughly. The earliest manuscripts are many many years after the anonymous authors wrote them. We don't even know who wrote them. Come on now. You know how complicated this is. Hell, Tov's book in the latest edition is hundreds of pages 500+ and his other edition which isn't that long ago has more information in it in some areas than the new edition. And that's just the Hebrew Bible and not even the septuagint. We're guessing Paul wrote seven genuine letters. That soon may be down to six and even in the one in Corinthians there are problems. What are the earliest manuscripts copies of you ask. I ask why you ask me that. Nobody knows for sure. Hundreds of years except for fragments and one early one.
Your assertion seems to be "we can't know much about the originals because we don't have those today" and our assertion is that we can know quite a bit about them, even with a great deal of certainty what they said. That is one of the benefits of textual criticism, it helps to establish the oldest and most reliable reading of any given text using the variants.