Graphic: NT Reliability Comparison to Ancient Documents

Question:

This image has often been used to demonstrate the reliability of the New Testament. What is your response to this?

nt_reliability1

Answer:

This infographic relies on two of the three defective principles that beginners make when it comes to textual criticism, namely the number of witnesses (manuscripts) and the age of the witness (manuscripts). I’ve previously written on these three defective principles as outlined by the textual critical scholar Leon Vaganay. Before we get into the textual critical problems with this infographic, we first need to examine the theological problems with it.

Theology

One of the first claims we normally associate with the use of this infographic bases itself on the fallacy of false equivalency. We are told that scholars and historians have no problem trusting and relying on the ancient works ascribed to Homer, Aristotle or Plato, so given that we have so many more manuscripts of the New Testament we should have even more trust and reliance on the New Testament as it compares to the quantity of manuscripts for the previously aforementioned ancient documents. The problem with this argument is that I don’t need the works of Homer, Aristotle or Plato for salvation. Rejecting, not reading, ignoring and discarding the works of those men does not affect my salvation, which is why we can generally rely on and trust them. Since whether or not they actually are reliable or accurate does not affect my life in any meaningful way.

However, when it comes to the New Testament, it’s a different story. We are told it contains the inspired words of God, that we need to rely and trust it for our eternal salvation, that denying and rejecting it would lead to our eternal damnation. The stakes here are quite higher. Rejecting the works of Tacitus does not send me to hell. Waking up one morning to find out that alterations were made to the writings attributed to Plato, has no consequence on me whatsoever. My entire worldview does not change, my salvation does not rest on my accepting or rejecting the works of Tacitus and Plato. Therefore, when it comes to theology, it is an honestly poor argument to make that if we can trust something that has no bearing on our salvation, then we can also trust something that allegedly has significant bearing on our salvation. This is a dishonest comparison by all means.

The Number

There are some 24, 000 manuscripts! That number is practically meaningless and useless for a number of reasons. To begin with, of the 24, 000 that this infographic claims exists, how many of them are within the first 300 years of Christianity? According to the  Institute for New Testament Textual Research (INTF) there are only 67 manuscripts in total existing from this time period. That figure represents 0.27% of the total number of New Testament manuscripts. The vast majority of New Testament manuscripts were written after the 11th century CE, some 1100 years after the Messiah. So while the number is big, it is misleading.

The Date

The number is misleading because it is juxtaposed with the date range of 40-70 years “between the earliest surviving copies”. Seeing 24, 000 juxtaposed with an early date range is extremely misleading, leaving the impression that the number correlates with the date range. In reality, there are only 7 New Testament manuscripts that fall into the first 200 years of Christianity, all of which are extremely fragmentary. That represents a figure of 0.029% of all New Testament manuscripts that can possibly be ascribed to the date range given in the infographic.

Conclusion

While the infographic does provide somewhat accurate information, its use of that information to argue for the reliability of the New Testament is both misleading and dishonest. The arguments derived from the use of this infographic don’t endorse the claim of the reliability of the New Testament, but rather demonstrates that many Christians simply do consider their scripture to be equal in weight to the works of ancient peoples. The very fact that they choose to argue that if we can trust the ancient manuscripts ascribed to Plato and Homer, therefore we can trust the New Testament is to also say that Plato’s and Homer’s work stand on the same credibility level as that of scripture inspired by God. Rather than defend the holiness of scripture, such an argument truthfully undermines it, while falsely comparing what should be the work inspired by a holy and all knowing God, to that of mortal men.

and God knows best.

Advertisements


Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Christianity

Tags: , ,

41 replies

  1. “However, when it comes to the New Testament, it’s a different story. We are told it contains the inspired words of God, that we need to rely and trust it for our eternal salvation, that denying and rejecting it would lead to our eternal damnation.”

    Yes, and no critical variant has any impact on these theological concepts. Strange that you left that out? so in fact the very point you are arguing against is already established beyond a doubt.

    Time to convert buddy…

    Like

    • “Yes, and no critical variant has any impact on these theological concepts.”

      Might want to watch this debate, I do point out that there are variants that do impact Christian theology, the Christian speaker also agreed:

      “Strange that you left that out?”

      Well it wasn’t a post about variants that affect theology, it was a post about an infographic and responding to it. Hence the title…You’re probably one of those people that would follow an online recipe, change the ingredients and then complain about the recipe. Complaining about what the article is not, is weird.

      “so in fact the very point you are arguing against is already established beyond a doubt.”

      I’d disagree that that was established, hence my debate and the statements I made in it. I’d also have to ask why should I trust a scripture that God inspired, only partially, where He allowed errors to creep into the normative tradition? See Grudem on “accommodation”, he breaks down that reasoning quite handily.

      Liked by 3 people

    • As much as you like to self promote, I’m not going to watch a two hour debate just for you to rack up YouTube points.

      If you a point, say it.

      No critical Christian doctrine is effected by variants. Thus, your comment about eternal salvation is answered.

      Plus, we all know Koranic tradition contains variants. Only radicals seems to still be stuck believing in some weird perfect preservation masjid theory.

      Like

    • “I’d also have to ask why should I trust a scripture that God inspired, only partially, where He allowed errors to creep into the normative tradition?”

      The bait and switch- confusing inspiration with transmission. This isn’t the masjid pal.

      Like

    • “As much as you like to self promote, I’m not going to watch a two hour debate just for you to rack up YouTube points.”

      Well buddy, you’re on *my* article, questioning *my* views, so why would I give an answer other than one about or from *me*? If answering a question about *my* views, by giving a response from *me* is self promotion, then maybe you shouldn’t ask *me* a question?

      It’s a 2 hour debate that answers your question, if you don’t want to watch the debate to get the answer about your question, then that’s your loss, not mine.

      “If you a point, say it.”

      I did, for roughly 2 hours as you pointed out above.

      “No critical Christian doctrine is effected by variants.”

      And I disagree, hence the debate link above.

      “Thus, your comment about eternal salvation is answered.”

      Well it isn’t answered, hence the debate link above. I seem to remember *all* of scripture being God-breathed, not some.

      “Plus, we all know Koranic tradition contains variants. Only radicals seems to still be stuck believing in some weird perfect preservation masjid theory.”

      This isn’t about the Qur’an, it’s a post about the New Testament. You can try tu quoque another time though, for now, let the NT stand on its own two legs.

      Liked by 2 people

    • “The bait and switch- confusing inspiration with transmission. This isn’t the masjid pal.”

      Right, it isn’t a Masjid, but it ain’t a Church either so that ridiculous talking point should be thrown out. God was busy inspiring scripture, the scripture said all of it is God-breathed, not some, and it certainly does not say, “except the transmission” either.

      Liked by 3 people

    • “God was busy inspiring scripture, the scripture said all of it is God-breathed, not some, and it certainly does not say, “except the transmission” either.”

      So, here you are again applying a text on inspiration to the masjidtheory of preservation. Fallacy #1. Then you continue on to use an argument from silence as evidence. Fallacy #2.

      Look, it ain’t hard. I know for certain that there is no variant that effects any of the fundamental Christian doctrines. Almost all variants are insignificant. And even then the Koran has them too!

      So the inforgraphic is absolutely correct. When we compare the Nt to documents from its own era, it is significantly far more reliable and trustworthy. This bizarre notion of yours that a religious text demands perfect preservation is just some radical nonsense from the masjid.

      Oh, and just for the record, your article is littered with red herrings. Just another fallacy to add to your list.

      Like

    • [[So, here you are again applying a text on inspiration to the masjidtheory of preservation. Fallacy #1.]]

      Preservation is part and parcel of inspiration, it’s a false dichotomy to indicate otherwise. The least you can do to prove this is a “fallacious” argument is to demonstrate it via proof by contradiction. Where does the NT speak on preservation partially? The onus is on you to qualify that claim, on the other hand, we’ve all noticed that you have not replied to your scripture stating that all of it is God-breathed, not some.

      [[Then you continue on to use an argument from silence as evidence. Fallacy #2.]]

      At this point it’s clear you don’t know what the argument from silence is, I gave a reference that specifically spoke on scripture and its inspiration and preservation, you on the other hand did not. What you did was the argument from silence. At least try to know how logic works before repeating terms you don’t understand.

      [[Look, it ain’t hard. I know for certain that there is no variant that effects any of the fundamental Christian doctrines.]]

      Since you know for certain, have you yourself looked at all the variant units to arrive at such a conclusion? To the contrary, my debate opponent affirmed my position, and he’s a Masters student in theology, while you are…? See, this is how logic works, proof by contradiction. You can just listen to James White’s DL on NA28, he also contradicts what you’ve said.

      [[Almost all variants are insignificant.]]

      Wait. Stop. Almost all, meaning not all. Therefore you accept that some are significant. How does this reasoning work? You’re okay with admitting there are indeed variants that are significant, but to what extent is a variant significant if it does not affect theology? This is essentially self-refuting.

      [[And even then the Koran has them too!]]

      Apples and oranges, and this is literally the definition of tu quoque. The Qur’an has inspired variants (not referring to lapsus calami) which have been stemmatically validated. Can the same be said of any significant variant unit’s genealogical projection in the New Testament?

      [[So the inforgraphic is absolutely correct.]]

      You’ll need to demonstrate that it’s “absolutely” correct before jumping to that conclusion. Denying that there are significant variants, then indicating there were significant variants, demonstrates that you are of two minds. In other words, the graphic is incorrect, not only for the reasons I listed, but also according to your very comments.

      [[When we compare the Nt to documents from its own era, it is significantly far more reliable and trustworthy.]]

      Again, this needs to be demonstrated. When we compare the Western text type, how reliable and trustworthy is it? Again, proof by contradiction.

      [[This bizarre notion of yours that a religious text demands perfect preservation is just some radical nonsense from the masjid.]]

      I looked in the article and my comments, but I don’t see where I demanded perfect preservation. My one and only notion is, if all scripture is God-breathed, why did God choose not preserve the scripture He inspired in the first place?

      [[Oh, and just for the record, your article is littered with red herrings. Just another fallacy to add to your list.]]

      You keep using the word fallacy, it doesn’t mean what you think it means. No red herrings there, I literally used statistical information and textual critical scholarship to arrive at my conclusions, where are the red herrings there?

      Like

    • Paulus just got slammed by Ijaz!!

      Liked by 2 people

    • “Wait. Stop. Almost all, meaning not all. Therefore you accept that some are significant. How does this reasoning work?”

      Easy, because none of the “significant” variants effect any of the fundamental doctrines, which was the argument in your article. But go ahead, try and manipulate my comments to self promote again. You’re skirting the issue with your typical ijazian semantics.

      Interesting that you are the one who makes a claim, e.g a biblical text on inspiration necessarily entails preservation, and yet try to put the burden of proof on me. Another attempt at the bait and switch. You repeated the claim several times without actually demonstrating it. How exactly does “God breathed” entail a need for perfect preservation? Can you provide a single lexical comment to support your nonsense. Remember, proof by contradiction. You may be able to make things up in the masjid but don’t expect the rest of us to buy it.

      Look, it’s easy, just show us a variant that effects any of the fundamental Christian doctrines. It’s that easy. But we both know you can’t, because they don’t exist. Even Bilal has schooled you on your gross exaggerations before re textual criticism. You can bang on about your debate, but if you actually has anything, it wouldn’t be hard. Let’s try an example- is there a variant that would likely cause scholars to question whether Jesus was actually crucified? Is this core doctrinal truth dependant upon a variant reading?

      “Where does the NT speak on preservation partially”

      I didn’t say it did. What I did say was that your conflation of 2 tim 3:16 as a text on preservation was fallacious, which it is. You can’t just assume preservation into a text on inspiration. We have a word for that- eisegesis.

      But hey, since you believe that Allah inspires transmission errors in your Koran, why am I not surprised you follow such poor reasoning.

      Like

    • [[Easy, because none of the “significant” variants effect any of the fundamental doctrines,]]

      What makes the variants significant then? And yes, they do affect doctrines, like the inerrancy of scripture and the preservation of scripture, was Wayne Grudem has demonstrated.

      [[which was the argument in your article.]]

      My article doesn’t mention variants, please reference where it does, I’ll be waiting.

      [[But go ahead, try and manipulate my comments to self promote again. You’re skirting the issue with your typical ijazian semantics.]]

      I’m okay with you behaving this way and addressing me this way, it’s okay, I forgive you.

      [[Interesting that you are the one who makes a claim, e.g a biblical text on inspiration necessarily entails preservation, and yet try to put the burden of proof on me.]]

      I actually gave my proof, cited a passage, provided scholarship like White and Grudem and a video with me discussing this with someone doing their Masters in a seminary. Not sure how none of those things are not proof. On the other hand, you’ve not demonstrated where preservation is not part and parcel of inspiration. I’ve already qualified my claim, you haven’t, and that’s what we’re waiting on.

      [[Another attempt at the bait and switch. You repeated the claim several times without actually demonstrating it.]]

      See above. I actually did. You ignoring my demonstrating of it, does not mean I did not demonstrate it.

      [[How exactly does “God breathed” entail a need for perfect preservation?]]

      This isn’t rocket science. If all of scripture by definition is God breathed, and you’re saying that some of scripture isn’t because it’s not fully preserved, then you’re arguing against the very meaning of God breathed in the first place.

      [[Can you provide a single lexical comment to support your nonsense.]]

      I did…hence referring you to Grudem…

      [[Remember, proof by contradiction.]]

      Hence the references which you are ignoring…

      [[You may be able to make things up in the masjid but don’t expect the rest of us to buy it.]]

      I’m okay with you trying to use insults, but just repeating the same one over and over again isn’t helping. Try harder, otherwise it’s just boring and comical.

      [[Look, it’s easy, just show us a variant that effects any of the fundamental Christian doctrines. It’s that easy. But we both know you can’t, because they don’t exist.]]

      Surprising that I can’t show any, but I held an entire debate on it. Again, proof by contradiction, I did show variants that affect doctrine, you just refused to watch the discussion about it.

      [[Even Bilal has schooled you on your gross exaggerations before re textual criticism.]]

      Him disagreeing with me doesn’t mean I’m wrong, he doesn’t do TC, I do, we had a difference of opinion. Not sure how that’s “schooling” anyone, given that White agreed with my statements on John 9:38. How does that logic work?

      [[You can bang on about your debate, but if you actually has anything, it wouldn’t be hard. Let’s try an example- is there a variant that would likely cause scholars to question whether Jesus was actually crucified? Is this core doctrinal truth dependant upon a variant reading?]]

      Of course it’s not hard, hence the debate video where I presented arguments and quotes on variations which affect doctrine. Are there variants that bring into question the veracity of the claims about the crucifixion? Yes, several! The fictitious ending of Mark, the differences between the narratives are all variants that scholars have had to grapple with for years, trying to harmonize them results in drastically different storylines, a la the Diatesseron.

      [[I didn’t say it did.]]

      That’s my very point. I’ve provided a reference for my understanding of the Bible…using the Bible, on the other hand, you have not. Why is that? It’s a simple request.

      [[What I did say was that your conflation of 2 tim 3:16 as a text on preservation was fallacious, which it is. You can’t just assume preservation into a text on inspiration. We have a word for that- eisegesis.]]

      You have to demonstrate that it’s fallacious, scholars like Grudem disagree, hence his work on “Accommodation”. Are you therefore saying, that you can’t assume God will preserve an inspired text, then what’s the use of inspiring the text in the first place? I mean, you’re free to call that eisegesis, but that doesn’t make the claim true, it just means you can’t qualify your own beliefs using the Bible and so have to merely reject what I’ve presented. Come on, show us where the Bible distinguishes between preservation and inspiration. If sscripture is all God breathed, then how does non-inspired text fit into that understanding of scripture? It doesn’t. Do tell me what the “fallacy” was there. I’ll be waiting.

      [[But hey, since you believe that Allah inspires transmission errors in your Koran,]]

      Do quote me where I said that.

      [[why am I not surprised you follow such poor reasoning.]]

      Given that I’ve never said that, and that you literally just made it up, which makes you the source, and then you claimed it to be poor reasoning, then I agree! Your false claim is made up of poor reasoning, from you! Well done on self-refuting yourself.

      Try again.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Now it’s clear why you didn’t want to show your cards. You article was discussing the key issue of salvation / hell etc not preservation of a text. Hence why I asked you to provide any evidence for a variant in a core gospel doctrine. You’ve now admitted by admission that I was right. But, hey, let’s quote a scholar just to slam dunk you

      “In the end the readings which are significant to the meaning of the text amount to less than one half of one percent and none of these put any basic Christian doctrine into question.” Dr Bruce Ware

      I’ve read Grudem plenty. His systematic theology was a core reading for my theology class. Rather than name dropping, you need to provide what they say. The accomodation theory is about the doctrine of inerrancy. Grudem affirms inspiration and inerrancy in the originals manuscripts. No where have I read him posit the ridiculous muhammadan notion of perfect preservation. Name dropping people without citation is not an “argument” Ijaz.

      “then you’re arguing against the very meaning of God breathed in the first place.”

      How so? I asked you to provide lexical comment to demonstrate what the true meaning is. You didn’t. You pointed me to ‘Grudem’, even though you’ve not shown anything from Grudem. How do the lexicons define that term?

      Let’s make it simple. Does Grudem believe this text refers to the autographs or to ongoing preservation?

      I can almost guarantee that you’ve read some of Grudems critiques on translation debates and thought he was making comment about preservation 😂😂😂

      “Yes, several! The fictitious ending of Mark, the differences between the narratives are all variants that scholars have had to grapple with for years, trying to harmonize them results in drastically different storylines, a la the Diatesseron”

      And here is the punch line! The variant on Mark’s ending says nothing about the crucifixion. The death and burial of Jesus happened the chapter before. Strike one. And gospel harmonisation by definition is not a variant related to manuscripts or transmission. Strike two. As I suspected, you can’t actually provide any manuscript variant that effects any Core Christian doctrine. They simply don’t exist.

      “he doesn’t do TC, I do”

      You dabble with TC, ignoring what the actual scholars say, confuse a translation debate on gender with transmission, use the issue of harmonisation fallaciously as a textual variant issue and then cite a resurrection variant as proof against a totally different historical event. Ijaz, be honest with yourself. If you want to do TC, go and study under someone who will help you so you don’t make embarrassing blunders like we’ve seen in these comments

      Like

    • [[Now it’s clear why you didn’t want to show your cards. You article was discussing the key issue of salvation / hell etc not preservation of a text.]]

      So you admit I didn’t mention variants or raise the topic in my article. That’s a good start.

      [[Hence why I asked you to provide any evidence for a variant in a core gospel doctrine.]]

      Wait, so my article was not on variants, so you decided to ask about variants anyway? How does that logic work? In any case, I did answer your question: inerrancy.

      [[You’ve now admitted by admission that I was right. But, hey, let’s quote a scholar just to slam dunk you]]

      Well I’ve never admitted you were right, so strike one, putting words into my mouth, and strike 2, lying. Well done.

      [[“In the end the readings which are significant to the meaning of the text amount to less than one half of one percent and none of these put any basic Christian doctrine into question.” Dr Bruce Ware]]

      I don’t think you understand how this works, I already referenced two scholars who say otherwise. So quoting someone who disagrees with those scholars, does not make you write, it just shows they disagree with each other. If quoting someone means we slam dunk each other, then it’s stalemate by your own reasoning.

      [[I’ve read Grudem plenty. His systematic theology was a core reading for my theology class. Rather than name dropping, you need to provide what they say. The accomodation theory is about the doctrine of inerrancy.]]

      Indeed it is about inerrancy, and as he points out, “Rather, the authors of both the Old Testament and the New Testament repeatedly affirm the absolute veracity, reliability, and purity of every word of Scripture (Ps. 12:6, 18:30, 119:96, 140; Prov. 8:8, 30:5; Matt. 22:44-45; Luke 24:25; John 10:35; Acts 24:14; Rom. 15:5, et al). Accommodation would indicate that there are some words of Scripture that are not absolutely reliable, and would therefore be contrary to these passages.”

      Seems like he absolute disagrees with you. Great to know you studied him though! Every word of scripture matters, not only those with doctrines.

      [[Grudem affirms inspiration and inerrancy in the originals manuscripts. No where have I read him posit the ridiculous muhammadan notion of perfect preservation. Name dropping people without citation is not an “argument” Ijaz.]]

      Well actually, if you did study his Systematic Theology, he dedicates quite a few pages to arguing that, “Thus, God issues severe warnings to anyone who would take away even one word from what he has said to us (Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18–19): we cannot add to God’s words or take from them, for all are part of his larger purpose in speaking to us. Everything stated in Scripture is there because God intended it to be there: God does not say anything unintentionally! Thus, this first objection to inerrancy makes a wrong use of a summary and thereby incorrectly attempts to impose artificial limits on the kinds of things about which God can speak to us.”

      In other words, he’s arguing against the view that inerrancy only applies to “major” doctrines, rather, he disagrees with your view and argues that EVERYTHING is inerrant, not just somethings based on an artificial limit. Seems like you need to go back to school.

      [[How so? I asked you to provide lexical comment to demonstrate what the true meaning is. You didn’t. You pointed me to ‘Grudem’, even though you’ve not shown anything from Grudem. How do the lexicons define that term?]]

      He literally mentions this exact point in “Some Challenges to Inerrancy”, citing that exact verse, rebuking people like you who argue for artificial limitations on the inerrancy of scripture to only essential matters of faith and practise.

      [[Let’s make it simple. Does Grudem believe this text refers to the autographs or to ongoing preservation]]

      Both, he literally says he believes in the tenacity of the text, which means that the original reading has already been found in the variant units according to his understanding, under the assumption, as he says, “for they are exact copies of the originals”. Again, you’re wrong.

      [[I can almost guarantee that you’ve read some of Grudems critiques on translation debates and thought he was making comment about preservation 😂😂😂]]

      Might want to get a refund for that guarantee. Good luck with that. You mentioned you studied his Systematic Theology, yet you don’t think he spoke about preservation in his chapters on inerrancy? I mean, you’re just making yourself look ridiculous. It’s cringe-worthy.

      “Yes, several! The fictitious ending of Mark, the differences between the narratives are all variants that scholars have had to grapple with for years, trying to harmonize them results in drastically different storylines, a la the Diatesseron”

      [[And here is the punch line! The variant on Mark’s ending says nothing about the crucifixion. The death and burial of Jesus happened the chapter before.]]

      You may want to learn to read, “the differences between the narratives are all variants”. Given that they copied from each other, scholars have long indicated that one is a variant from the others. Strike 3 for you in this case, I think that means you’re out.

      [[And gospel harmonisation by definition is not a variant related to manuscripts or transmission. Strike two.]]

      It actually is….it’s called stemmatics, and trying to recover the intermediate text, hence debates about Quelle, Markan and Matthean priority, to know who copied from who, to create the variants as we know them today, thus determining which text was the initial one and not of the later editions.

      [[As I suspected, you can’t actually provide any manuscript variant that effects any Core Christian doctrine. They simply don’t exist.]]

      Well you suspected wrong, I managed to have an entire debate on it, so again, proof by contradiction. You also failed to answer, where does God say that only the autographs are protected from corruption? Where does God say, that only the core doctrines are protected from corruption? You’ve talked more about me than your own scripture, it just goes to show that when questioned, you abandon your scripture (which I applaud you for), and go straight for ad hominem, you’re definitely a Christian!

      [[You dabble with TC, ignoring what the actual scholars say,]]

      Well given that I’m actively studying under scholars themselves…it’d be hard for me to ignore what they say. Good luck with that thinking though.

      [[confuse a translation debate on gender with transmission]]

      Another lie, given that my quotes come from Grudem’s Systematic Theology on the very issue of inerrancy and the preservation of scripture. You’ve got to prove this false claim, let’s see how honest you can be.

      [[use the issue of harmonisation fallaciously as a textual variant issue]]

      Isn’t fallaciously, it’s literally called stemmatics where you use genealogical projection to find the intermediate and then potentially the initial text. What’s fallacious there? You keep using that word, but never correctly, it’s funny.

      [[and then cite a resurrection variant as proof against a totally different historical event.]]

      I love that you distinguish between the resurrection and the crucifixion as a historical event. Well done!

      [[Ijaz, be honest with yourself. If you want to do TC, go and study under someone who will help you so you don’t make embarrassing blunders like we’ve seen in these comments]]

      Well given that no blunders were made, and that you had to resort to insults and then putting words in my mouth, along with making false claims about where I cited arguments from Grudem, it just shows that you’re desperate, unable to defend your views and rather behave immaturely than discuss something with mutual respect.

      May God forgive you and have mercy on you.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “In other words, he’s arguing against the view that inerrancy only applies to “major” doctrines, rather, he disagrees with your view and argues that EVERYTHING is inerrant, not just somethings based on an artificial limit. Seems like you need to go back to school.”

      Ijaz, I affirm inerrancy 😂😂. You say that you are studying under scholars, yet here you are confusing preservation with inerrancy. Grudem’s accomodation critique isn’t against people who believe that transmission of the NT isn’t perfect, it is against people who deny inerrancy. How can you seriously not distinguish the two?

      The whole point of TC is to reconstruct the text. In that sense, we are absolutely confident that the “original” has been preserved, because scholars can sift the transmission errors.. This is Grudem’s position, and mine, not that the transmission has been perfectly preserved in the muhammadan sense of inspired variants.

      In other words, you are confusing theology with TC- a little boy blinder, but easy when your objective is to attack Christ and the church.

      Notice that I asked you to show me where Grudem affirms your Muhammadan theory of preservation? I’m still waiting. The theologicslChristian concept of tenacity is nothing like it. You don’t seem to realise the difference? Or maybe it’s deliberate? You need to stop reading Christian scholars through the prism of your Islamic bias.

      “He literally mentions this exact point in “Some Challenges to Inerrancy”, citing that exact verse, rebuking people like you who argue for artificial limitations on the inerrancy of scripture to only essential matters of faith and practise.”

      When did I put limits on inerrancy? What was that you said about words in mouths? You can’t seem to help yourself in continually conflating inspiration/ inerrancy with Muhammadan preservation. Get the point: TC allows us to have confidence that we have the originals because the errors can be removed. This is not suggesting that the variants are inspired readings like what you believe. I can’t believe how many times you need to be told the same thing.

      Anyway, I see that this is futile. You can’t provide a single variant to invalidate any core Christian doctrine (the science of TC), and you continue to conflate a theological debate on inerrancy and translation with a completely different science. I’ve lost hope in you ever admitting you are wrong.

      Like

    • Oh, and just for the record, Dr Bruce Ware and Dr Wayne Grudem have identical beliefs when it comes to inspiration/ inerrancy 😂😂 they are from the same theological family so to speak.

      So,no, it is no one scholar disagreeing with another, it is a case of you misunderstanding or misusing Dr Grudem for your Islamic purpose and not realising that How TC applies to Christian theology.

      I’m sure Bilal knows this and may like to “correct” you again even though you don’t believe he is qualified to speak on this topic

      Like

    • “In other words, he’s arguing against the view that inerrancy only applies to “major” doctrines, rather, he disagrees with your view and argues that EVERYTHING is inerrant, not just somethings based on an artificial limit. Seems like you need to go back to school.”

      [Ijaz, I affirm inerrancy 😂😂.]

      Re-read what you quoted from me, I specifically referenced when you said no major doctrines are affected AND that is what your inerrancy meant for today’s NT:

      “No critical Christian doctrine is effected by variants.”

      He disagrees, everything is inerrant including today’s text, he does not place what he describes as artificial limits on what has been preserved. The fact that you can’t admit to that, when I’m using direct quotes, says all we need to know about you.

      [[You say that you are studying under scholars, yet here you are confusing preservation with inerrancy.]]

      Re-read every comment I’ve made, one includes the other, you yourself argued that the major doctrines were preserved and thus inerrant in today’s text, ergo you yourself conceded that point so there’s no use in trying to say otherwise now.

      [[Grudem’s accomodation critique isn’t against people who believe that transmission of the NT isn’t perfect, it is against people who deny inerrancy. How can you seriously not distinguish the two?]]

      Actually, it is, under the heading of “Some Challenges to Inerrancy”, he directly goes into textual criticism and the transmission of the text. So either you lied when you said you studied his work on Systematic Theology, or you’re lying now when claiming I don’t distinguish between the two, when the very chapter I’m quoting from mentions textual criticism itself.

      [[The whole point of TC is to reconstruct the text. In that sense, we are absolutely confident that the “original” has been preserved, because scholars can sift the transmission errors.. This is Grudem’s position, and mine, not that the transmission has been perfectly preserved in the muhammadan sense of inspired variants.]]

      Again, I’ve caught you being dishonest, hence the quote I literally took from Grudem’s work, where he explicitly says, “for they are exact copies of the originals”. Ergo, he believes the copies of today are exact of the originals. I didn’t say perfectly preserved, no did I say he said that. Again, we’ve caught you putting words into my mouth when you’ve been caught lying.

      [[In other words, you are confusing theology with TC- a little boy blinder, but easy when your objective is to attack Christ and the church.]]

      Again, putting words into my mouth and making things up. You should be embarrassed of yourself, this behaviour is unbecoming of a person seeking to bring others to the truth.

      [[Notice that I asked you to show me where Grudem affirms your Muhammadan theory of preservation? I’m still waiting. The theologicslChristian concept of tenacity is nothing like it. You don’t seem to realise the difference? Or maybe it’s deliberate? You need to stop reading Christian scholars through the prism of your Islamic bias.]]

      Why would I need to show that when I never claimed that? Your whole paragraph is useless, you’re attacking a strawman, feel free to quote where I said what you presented in that paragraph, just like the other 5 times I asked you to quote me on a claim you put into my mouth, you’ll ignore the request and pretend I didn’t catch you being deceptive and dishonest.

      [[When did I put limits on inerrancy? What was that you said about words in mouths?]]

      Re-read what you quoted from me, I specifically referenced when you said no major doctrines are affected AND that is what your inerrancy meant for today’s NT:

      “No critical Christian doctrine is effected by variants.”

      He disagrees, everything is inerrant including today’s text, he does not place what he describes as artificial limits on what has been preserved. The fact that you can’t admit to that, when I’m using direct quotes, says all we need to know about you.

      [[You can’t seem to help yourself in continually conflating inspiration/ inerrancy with Muhammadan preservation.]]

      I never claimed this, nor conflated anything, every time I asked you to prove your claim about this you just repeat it without quoting me. That’s because you’re again, attacking a strawman.

      [[Get the point: TC allows us to have confidence that we have the originals because the errors can be removed.]]

      I think you need to get the point, it doesn’t give you confidence in anything if all you can go back to is a reconstructed text from the 2nd century that are not representatives of the ausgangstext. Key words: prototype, vorlage, ergo not the actual text.

      [[This is not suggesting that the variants are inspired readings like what you believe. I can’t believe how many times you need to be told the same thing.]]

      Considering in TC, is is widely believed the authors copied from each other, creating new variants for the 4 Gospels and their narratives, yes, you’d have to then believe the variants in those specific cases are inspired. This is common knowledge, the fact you’d dispute this, either shows your ignorance or your pettiness.

      [[Anyway, I see that this is futile. You can’t provide a single variant to invalidate any core Christian doctrine (the science of TC), and you continue to conflate a theological debate on inerrancy and translation with a completely different science. I’ve lost hope in you ever admitting you are wrong.]]

      It is futile because of your lack of decency, honesty, integrity, reliability, etc. You’ve demonstrated that you make false claims and when called out, you just repeat yourself, you insult when you’re proven wrong, you mock when confronted with the truth. You create strawmen and when called out, you ignore and repeat them. I have provided variants which affect doctrine, hence the video where I discussed it with someone far more educated than you.

      Like

    • [[Oh, and just for the record, Dr Bruce Ware and Dr Wayne Grudem have identical beliefs when it comes to inspiration/ inerrancy 😂😂 they are from the same theological family so to speak. So,no, it is no one scholar disagreeing with another, it is a case of you misunderstanding or misusing Dr Grudem for your Islamic purpose and not realising that How TC applies to Christian theology.]]

      Considering I quoted him, and his quote disputed your quote, I’d say that’s a contradiction, and thus you are demonstrably wrong. Also, you haven’t demonstrated that I misused him, or misunderstood what he said, since I’m literally the only here that quoted him and you denied he discussed TC when there’s an entire chapter devoted to it where I got my quotes from in his very work on ST. In other words, I caught you lying big time.

      [[I’m sure Bilal knows this and may like to “correct” you again even though you don’t believe he is qualified to speak on this topic]]

      Didn’t say he was unqualified, there you go again putting words into my mouth, just like the lying pens of the scribes put fantasies unto Jesus’s (peace be upon him)’s lips. FYI, Br. Paul liked my comments responding to you, so trying the whole pit us against each other thing is really obvious and has blown up in your face. He disagrees with you, as does almost every other person commenting on this article does.

      Good riddance.

      Like

    • “Considering I quoted him, and his quote disputed your quote, I’d say that’s a contradiction, and thus you are demonstrably wrong”

      This is what it boils down to really. You’ve cited Grudem on his discussion re inerrancy and inspiration. You’ve then conflated that discussion to be about textual criticism and variant readings. You then assume that this particular citation contradicts another scholar from the same theological family.

      When in reality, you’ve just misread Grudem. Let me cite him fully:

      “For most practical purposes, then, the current published scholarly texts of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament are the same as the original manuscripts. Thus, when we say that the original manuscripts were inerrant, we are also implying that over 99 percent of the words in our present manuscripts are also inerrant, for they are exact copies of the original. Furthermore, we know where the uncertain readings are…Thus, our present manuscripts are for most purposes the same as the original manuscripts, and the doctrine of inerrancy therefore directly concerns our present manuscripts as well.”

      And here is what I said

      “The whole point of TC is to reconstruct the text. In that sense, we are absolutely confident that the “original” has been preserved, because scholars can sift the transmission errors.. This is Grudem’s position, and mine, not that the transmission has been perfectly preserved in the muhammadan sense of inspired variants.

      Grudem talks about “uncertain readings” and being confident in 99% of the text, which is what I said, from which you told me Grudem disagreed 😂😂😂. Then you went on to say…

      “. I didn’t say perfectly preserved, no did I say he said that. Again, we’ve caught you putting words into my mouth when you’ve been caught lying.”

      You said that inspiration was inerrant and that preservation was part of inspiration, ergo, preservation is inerrant. You said Grudem agreed with you. Here is what you said…

      “Preservation is part and parcel of inspiration, it’s a false dichotomy to indicate otherwise.”

      Yet now you say you didn’t indicate preservations was perfect according to Grudem or yourself? You are just back tracking.

      While there is a tiny % of variants that we can’t be certain of, none of them effect any cardinal doctrine. Not even inerrancy. We know this because you cite Grudem as evidence when he admits the same thing. So you’ve basically refuted yourself now that I’ve exposed your misreading of scholarship.

      Good luck in your “studies”

      Like

    • “Considering I quoted him, and his quote disputed your quote, I’d say that’s a contradiction, and thus you are demonstrably wrong”

      [[This is what it boils down to really. You’ve cited Grudem on his discussion re inerrancy and inspiration. You’ve then conflated that discussion to be about textual criticism and variant readings. You then assume that this particular citation contradicts another scholar from the same theological family.]]

      Did you not read the very quote you provided? I didn’t conflate anything, he literally mentions manuscripts, variant readings and inerrancy in the same paragraph:

      “For most practical purposes, then, the current published scholarly texts of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament are the same as the original manuscripts. Thus, when we say that the original manuscripts were inerrant, we are also implying that over 99 percent of the words in our present manuscripts are also inerrant, for they are exact copies of the original. Furthermore, we know where the uncertain readings are…Thus, our present manuscripts are for most purposes the same as the original manuscripts, and the doctrine of inerrancy therefore directly concerns our present manuscripts as well.”

      In other words, you just proved yourself wrong! Congratulations on that one!

      [[And here is what I said “The whole point of TC is to reconstruct the text. In that sense, we are absolutely confident that the “original” has been preserved, because scholars can sift the transmission errors.. This is Grudem’s position, and mine, not that the transmission has been perfectly preserved in the muhammadan sense of inspired variants.]]

      I already said you were wrong on this, tenacity is an assumption rather than a fact and secondly, I already pointed out where Grudem disagreed with you, on placing artificial limits on the text, i.e. that only major doctrines are not affected by the preservation tradition of the NT. Also, I never once claimed he argued for perfect preservation, lying is a sin, time to go repent.

      [[Grudem talks about “uncertain readings” and being confident in 99% of the text, which is what I said, from which you told me Grudem disagreed.]]

      Yes, he disagrees on placing artificial limits on what has and has not been preserved. Which is why I quoted him on artificial limits. It’s amazing that you won’t put my quotes to match your statements, instead you apply arguments I used on one of your statement to another and you think that’s being truthful, that just shows that you need to cut and switch to avoid being further embarrassed.

      . I didn’t say perfectly preserved, no did I say he said that. Again, we’ve caught you putting words into my mouth when you’ve been caught lying.”

      [[You said that inspiration was inerrant and that preservation was part of inspiration, ergo, preservation is inerrant. You said Grudem agreed with you. Here is what you said…“Preservation is part and parcel of inspiration, it’s a false dichotomy to indicate otherwise.”]]

      I never said inspiration was inerrant and nor does the quote of me say that. Look at how dishonest you must behave to push a false agenda. This is incredible from you, undoubtedly, you are a Christian. So let’s see, I never said inspiration was inerrant, but it is true that preservation is part of inspiration, I also did not say that preservation is inerrant. So that’s two false statements you put into my mouth, and the quote you provided said neither. So try again, and try to be honest next time.

      [[Yet now you say you didn’t indicate preservations was perfect according to Grudem or yourself? You are just back tracking.]]

      I can’t back track from something I didn’t say, so try again.

      [[While there is a tiny % of variants that we can’t be certain of, none of them effect any cardinal doctrine.]]

      Again, there are many variants that we are not certain of, that is the reason the critical text is a prototype text, a prototype of a text from the 2nd to 5th centuries, the critical text is an indicator of what the text could be, may be, not of what it is. Many doctrines are affected, including inerrancy.

      [[Not even inerrancy. We know this because you cite Grudem as evidence when he admits the same thing. So you’ve basically refuted yourself now that I’ve exposed your misreading of scholarship.]]

      He admits something to the contrary, which again, was your claim of placing artificial limits on what was preserved, i.e. major doctrines, whereas he argued for all of scripture being preserved. Secondly, he again, contradicted your statements by saying, “Accommodation would indicate that there are some words of Scripture that are not absolutely reliable, and would therefore be contrary to these passages,” as is his belief that ALL, not just SOME of scripture is preserved and inerrant. The fact that you have repeatedly failed to address these points, demonstrates that you know you are wrong and hence you are incapable of admitting your errors and lies.

      [[Good luck in your “studies”]]

      Looks like you may need that luck, claims the guy doesn’t talk about inspiration, inerrancy and variants, then goes on to quote a paragraph where all three are mentioned. Your “studies” sure seem to have paid off.

      Thank You for proving me right. I appreciate it.

      Like

    • “I already said you were wrong on this, tenacity is an assumption rather than a fact ”

      This really sums it up for me. Here your latest comment you dismiss tenacity, saying I am wrong, yet earlier in our discussion you cite Grudem on tenacity in an attempt to refute me.

      “Indeed it is about inerrancy, and as he points out, “Rather, the authors of both the Old Testament and the New Testament repeatedly affirm the absolute veracity, reliability, and purity of every word of Scripture (Ps. 12:6, 18:30, 119:96, 140; Prov. 8:8, 30:5; Matt. 22:44-45; Luke 24:25; John 10:35; Acts 24:14; Rom. 15:5, et al). Accommodation would indicate that there are some words of Scripture that are not absolutely reliable, and would therefore be contrary to these passages.”
      Seems like he absolute disagrees with you.

      Great to know you studied him though! Every word of scripture matters, not only those with doctrines.”

      It’s hard to keep up. You cite Grudem on tenacity to *prove* me wrong, but then tell me I’m wrong because of the very thing you cite! This is Ijaz Ahmed at its finest, and sadly, very common.

      You would no doubt continue to moan that I’ve *lied* and blah blah blah ad nauseum, but I think for anyone reading this thread they will see how you’ve consistently contradicted yourself purely because you’ve misread the scholars. I’ve wasted my time with you.

      Like

    • “I already said you were wrong on this, tenacity is an assumption rather than a fact ”

      [[This really sums it up for me. Here your latest comment you dismiss tenacity, saying I am wrong, yet earlier in our discussion you cite Grudem on tenacity in an attempt to refute me.]]

      You might want to correct yourself, on my first mention of tenacity and Grudem I wrote:

      “Both, he literally says he believes in the tenacity of the text, which means that the original reading has already been found in the variant units according to his understanding, under the assumption, as he says, “for they are exact copies of the originals”.”

      Yet you present this quote below as to what I was referring to:

      “Indeed it is about inerrancy, and as he points out, “Rather, the authors of both the Old Testament and the New Testament repeatedly affirm the absolute veracity, reliability, and purity of every word of Scripture (Ps. 12:6, 18:30, 119:96, 140; Prov. 8:8, 30:5; Matt. 22:44-45; Luke 24:25; John 10:35; Acts 24:14; Rom. 15:5, et al). Accommodation would indicate that there are some words of Scripture that are not absolutely reliable, and would therefore be contrary to these passages.”

      So there you go again, applying one statement of mines to a completely different point of yours. The quote I presented on him and tenacity was 8 words, yet you cut a quote from a completely different area of my reply to you and apply it to something other than what it was used for. How can I take you seriously, when you swap one quote for another? That’s utterly dishonest and deceptive.

      [[Seems like he absolute disagrees with you.]]

      Nope, he agrees with my points. The two points being that the position of claiming only the major doctrines are inerrant in anything but the autographs is an artificial and thus wrong limit, and that ALL of scripture is inspired and hence preserved, not merely some.

      [[It’s hard to keep up.]]

      Of course it is, when you take one quote from x and apply it to a and another from b and apply it to y, as demonstrated above. So that’s your fault, maybe if you decided to be honest you wouldn’t have that problem 😉

      [[You cite Grudem on tenacity to *prove* me wrong, but then tell me I’m wrong because of the very thing you cite! This is Ijaz Ahmed at its finest, and sadly, very common.]]

      Of course I cited Grudem on tenacity to prove you wrong. You presented me with an x or a y argument, a false dichotomy, and I used his quote to demonstrate both were true, that is both x and y is correct according to his view, which disagreed with your false dichotomy. So you were proven wrong. If demonstrating your false dichotomy was wrong is me at my finest, then I’ve done my job well!

      [[You would no doubt continue to moan that I’ve *lied* and blah blah blah ad nauseum, but I think for anyone reading this thread they will see how you’ve consistently contradicted yourself purely because you’ve misread the scholars. I’ve wasted my time with you.]]

      You said that like 5 replies ago, but then again, here you are. Just remember, you’re the guy that said he wasn’t speaking about variants, inspiration and inerrancy, then provided a paragraph where he did exactly that.

      Good riddance.

      Like

  2. Paulus has trouble to accept the truth in religious matters…just arguing and wasting the precious time of other precious people post after post after post…after post.

    He does not have the honor of wanting to accept the truth even if it is inconvenient.

    Paulus, God will judge all with perfect justice. Even though Trinitarian Christianity is false, this does not mean that all Trinitarians are worse than non-Trinitarians.

    God knows their hearts and knows who struggle to obtain knowledge and truth and those who do not.

    But those who do not try to accept any evidence and truth, then God knows about them and such is evilness.

    Paulus does not seem to even want to struggle towards this end.

    God will give exacting punishment which of course will be severe and lasting to such people, especially when they try to mislead other souls.

    The time for obstinacy should wane off after the age of 3 and should be well on to be eliminated after 7.

    For those who continue to be obstinate in adulthood when their full cognitive capabilities are present and do not struggle to shake it off…most especially for those who are obstinate on matters of ultimate truth and for the hereafter, then lo, it is evilness.

    Alas, such then becomes subject for God’s exacting and severe and appropriate and lasting punishment.

    Paulus, I wish all people the best for them….and I wish what is best for you.

    I wish it was not the case for any Paulus or any person and that the best outcome I pray for is for one to leave their obstinacy….

    but I must remind myself that justice is goodness.

    Like

    • Is the truth based on fallacies? Didn’t think so. People like Ijaz are the reason I would never consider Islam. If their apologists write articles like this then who needs enemies, right?

      So as per a previous post, I’m happy to know that Allah will now transfer my sins onto Ijaz for being the cause of my disdain for Islam.

      Like

  3. Ijaz Ahmad, Shalom aleichem. As a convert from Judaism to Christianity and then finally to Islam, I am absolutely convinced that Islam is the Truth because of a number of reasons. The most important is this: The Absolute Textual Integrity and Internal Logical/Theological Consistency of the Qur’an. The NT as you clearly demonstrated is not infallible and contains transmission issues and the word of man.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Avi,
      I did not realize you were Muslim!! Based on many of your comments (which I often enjoy reading) and knowledge of Judaism, I had assumed you were a practicing Jew!! LOL!!

      Wallahi, it is good to have you as a brother in Islam!!! ASalaamu alaikum!!

      There are some really interesting people on this blog!!

      Like

    • Avi

      If this is true, then why are muslims reliant on external sources like the hadith to provide them with the means and manner of worship?

      The hadiths are man made speculations with extremely suspect historical credibility such that it is only through the circular reasoning of appealing to tradition to prove the traditions. In truth, there is no way to know whether the hadith reflect the actual actions of mohammed – the manuscript evidence is too scant. For all we know, the “examples of mohammed” were invented decades and centuries after he died.

      As for the quran – it is reliant on external man made sources to give it context and enable muslims to carry out its most central command; follow the example of mohammed. Yet, the quran does not even come close to mentioning bukhari or sahih muslim as the sources that muslims are required to look to.

      It’s a mess of man made paganism.

      Like

    • Hello Kev,

      [[If this is true, then why are muslims reliant on external sources like the hadith to provide them with the means and manner of worship?]]

      The Qur’an commands us to obey the Prophet (peace be upon), and to follow his understanding and instruction, these all refer to his Sunnah, therefore the Qur’an and Sunnah go hand in hand, it’s not an either or scenario.

      [[The hadiths are man made speculations with extremely suspect historical credibility such that it is only through the circular reasoning of appealing to tradition to prove the traditions. In truth, there is no way to know whether the hadith reflect the actual actions of mohammed – the manuscript evidence is too scant. For all we know, the “examples of mohammed” were invented decades and centuries after he died.]]

      The hadith corpus is actually quote rigorously authenticated using stemmatics, as well as identity criticism. The hadith corpus literally was transmitted alongside the Qur’an, so it is difficult to separate the two. The corpus relies on sanad transmission, a literal passing on of the knowledge from one apprentice to another, until such a point they knew and learned the transmission chain, the identities of those in the chain, the characters of those persons, their lineage and the actual wording itself, along with its understanding (sharh). It would be quite difficult to falsify that information, given that the Muslim regions would be trading, praying, teaching and learning among each other. As such, this is how we are able to be critical of Shi’a hadiths and of the Maghazi literature, as well as the Seerah literature. We are not reliant on manuscript transmission, though we do have examples of early manuscripts containing the hadith corpus and the Qur’an. Oral transmission is a perfectly fine way to transmit information, as long as there are checks and balances, which the Islamic tradition does have.

      [[As for the quran – it is reliant on external man made sources to give it context and enable muslims to carry out its most central command; follow the example of mohammed. Yet, the quran does not even come close to mentioning bukhari or sahih muslim as the sources that muslims are required to look to.]]

      The Qur’an speaks about obeying and following the Prophet (peace be upon him), while also speaking highly of the first generation of Muslims, the migrants and those from Yathrib (now Madina), since the Qur’an directly points us in the path of him and his companions, then there is no issue in following them, as long as there is widespread attestation (tawatur).

      [[It’s a mess of man made paganism.]]

      We would handily disagree 🙂

      Like

    • ijaz

      “The Qur’an commands us to obey the Prophet (peace be upon), and to follow his understanding and instruction, these all refer to his Sunnah, therefore the Qur’an and Sunnah go hand in hand, it’s not an either or scenario.”

      Fallacy of circularity.

      Furthermore, there are no commands to follow buhari or muslim or any other man made work. There are no indications that allah’s command to follow the example of mohammed was a reference to the hadith. That is merely tradition to support tradition.

      Either way, the quran is obviously incomplete since it is reliant on these man made works.

      Like

    • As for hadith “science”, it, again, is circular – the traditions say that the traditions are true and accurate, therefore they are true and accurate!!!

      Like

  4. Great comment Avi,

    May God bless you and may you reach closer to your full potential.

    Be careful of the hadith corpus. It is clearly not infallible. What I mean to say is that the Sahih Hadith are clearly not infallible.

    Of course the fallible “authentic” hadith are valuable and important but only in light of the infallible Qur’an and under the guide of the power of sustained and critical and collaborative reason which God has bestowed upon mankind rather than animals.

    Unfortunately some Muslims are to some degree in denial about the extent of the problem.

    Paulus, regardless of issues some Muslims may have, you really need to do the right thing if you care about yourself.

    Summon up the courage and the strength to just say NO! to the lust of wanting to continue the stubborn attachment to convenient beliefs and emotional thought patterns that you have grown up to be cherish.

    We must cherish the truth and goodness and vicarious atonement is abhorrently evil even apart from the logical and contradictory issues of the evolved New Testament. The problems only grow greater with Pauline Christianity and even more so with further Trinitarian Christianity. May God give you the strength to be blissful Paulus.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I pray that Almighty God Allah will soften the heart of he who calls himself Paulus, and free his soul from the chains of his ego, may his mind be put at ease, and may he put away his obstinate hatred and antagonism of others; let him be guided to the truth and become a great defender of Islam, inshallah. Ameen.

      Like

  5. Ijaz,
    Great breakdown of the argument!! Keep up the good efforts, your work is appreciated!! Jazakallahu Khair!

    Like

  6. I am going to use this paper to prove to my brother, a commited Pastor, that the NT is most certainly not the word of God as acknowledged by Paulus. But the words of Man and the Devil.

    Like

    • When did I acknowledge that?

      Variants actually increase the trustworthiness of what we have, unlike Islamic tradition which burned all the variant korans.

      Like

    • [[When did I acknowledge that?]]

      You acknowledged it wasn’t perfectly preserved, you cast doubt on the word of God. Well done. Everyone but you sees that. At some point you’ll need to ask, is everyone else wrong and you alone correct, or is it the opposite?

      [[Variants actually increase the trustworthiness of what we have,]]

      Yeah…you need to read scholarship on this, the more variants there are does not increase the trustworthiness, the very existence of more variants demonstrates a lax transmission process. How does a faulty process increase trustworthiness? What kind of logic are you using, or lack thereof?

      [[unlike Islamic tradition which burned all the variant korans.]]

      You burn papyri, not parchment and no, we have 14 Qira’at still existent to this day. 14 styles of recitation that vary. Literally variants that exist. Also, again, tu quoque. Let the NT stand on its own two legs without appealing to the Qur’an, but we both know it doesn’t, hence the tu quoque argument in the first place.

      Like

    • “You acknowledged it wasn’t perfectly preserved”

      Yes, I did.

      “you cast doubt on the word of God”

      that conclusion doesn’t follow Ijaz. What are we up to, 5 or 6 fallacies now?

      Now, about scholars

      in fact, most of the changes found in early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple—slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another.” – erhman

      “about 19/20 (95 percent) of the readings are ‘various’ rather than ‘rival’ readings, and 19/20 (95 percent) of the remainder are of so little importance that their adoption or rejection makes no appreciable difference in the sense of the passage”- Ezra Abbot textual critic

      “In the end the readings which are significant to the meaning of the text amount to less than one half of one percent and none of these put any basic Christian doctrine into question.” Dr Bruce Ware

      Proof by contradiction Ijaz

      Like

  7. http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.co.uk/2006/04/students-guide-to-textual-criticism.html?m=1

    The numbers for Homer’s Iliad are some way out. More than 1500 continuous text manuscripts. That’s more than any NT book except gospels. See above thread for more info.

    Also numerically you can’t just aggregate 27 separate books together. Not apples to apples comparison.

    Like

  8. Paulus, will you agree, that the entire Bible is not the word of God? Particularly the KJV? And why do you believe the NT is the word of God? What is the positive evidence that proves to you that Mathew 24: 34 is divinely inspired correct prophecy, even though C.S Lewis pretty much admitted it was a failed one?

    Mark 13:26-30 ; Luke 21:27-32 ; Matthew 16: 27, 28

    “Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.” (1 John 2:18)

    “Do not seek a wife. This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.” (1 Corinthians 7:27,29-31)

    “The end of all things is near…” (1 Peter 4:7)

    All of the above verses prove that the ”last hour” was expected within ”this generation” the one of the disciples, yet it failed to occur within the specific concrete timeline provided by Jesus and his followers. Therefore the NT Jesus and most certainly Paul must be False Prophets. False Profit Paul even stated :

    “Do not seek a wife. This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short..”

    These are some of the reasons why the Christian claims must be rejected.

    Like

    • The issue of scripture is important. But I could deny the full inspiration of the bible, for example, and still never be able to accept the Koran, simply because the death of Christ is an indisputable testimony of history, and since the Koran contradicts history, it can not be truth.

      Like

  9. ” Particularly the KJV? ”

    The KJV are the inspired words of God providentially preserved in that translation.

    Like

  10. Neither Jesus or Paul made any specific predictions or timelines about when the end would come.

    If you want to criticize the KJV then quote the KJV.

    Like

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: