-What GOOD does it do us, really, if an original-yet-lost-to-time manuscript was innerant (sic) down to the last details if God didn't see fit to preserve it in such a state through all generations?
I should've said "autograph" (ie, the original manuscript written by the hand of the biblical author or his amanuensis) instead of "MSS" before, so just wanted to clear that up.
As I said before, the Scriptures are God-breathed. So if the autographa weren't inerrant and error-free, then God screwed up. This is what I mean when I say that the Eastern Orthodox (EO) and Roman Catholic (RC) positions on this question are nearly always saw-off-their-own-limb.
-God, according to this criterion, made innerant (sic) Scriptures, then let them suffer corruption which, in your view, detracts from their innerance (sic).
I'm not sure of the antecedent to "their inerrance". If you mean the MSS that we have in our possession now, then obviously, yeah. If you mean the autographa, I don't see how that logically follows.
-You assume that it is ONLY the MSS that is God-breathed.
I don't see how taking what 2 Timothy 3:16 says and believing it is an assumption. You yourself are telling me the copied MSS have these problems, so you don't believe that the copied MSS are inerrant. You are in fact questioning whether the autographa are inerrant; on this one you're going back on your own position, which I find strange.
-Never mind the fact that the NT authors themselves almost ALWAYS preferred to quote the Greek Septuagint text instead of the Hebrew Masoretic.
Are you saying the LXX doesn't contain these copyist errors?
-The writer of Hebrews bases a MAJOR Christological argument on a verse from the LXX that, if read from the Hebrew, makes no sense.
This is tangential, but I'm genuinely curious to know which one.
-Someone should have told him, it seems, to stay away from "inferior" texts when writing Holy Writ.
Or one might reasonably conclude that when a God-inspired writer cites sthg, that psg at least has the seal of approval from God.
-from the late first century/early second century onward, "doubting the biblical MSS" was considered something that made you more faithful to apostolic Christian teaching rather than the Synagogue of Satan--the unbelieving Jews
In private correspondence, I've given you citation after citation of Early Ch Fathers who showed nothing but the highest respect for the authority of Scripture and who indeed considered it their foundational authority. You didn't buy them then; I don't expect you to now. But just to say.
Besides, I don't see how it matters to this question whether many in the early church overreacted to the Jews' general rejection of their Messiah by throwing the baby out w/ the bathwater.
-My admission of being corrected was in reference to HOW the errors were accomplished; someone took me to task for not understanding HOW the errors crept in. THAT the errors existed within the texts AS WE HAVE THEM was never in question, nor did I admit any error regarding whether or not the errors existed.
When did I ever deny that there exist errors in the extant MSS?
The article that was pasted into the comment correcting you also included this:
-Christians readily admit, however, that there have been 'scribal errors' in the copies of the Old and New Testament. It is beyond the capability of anyone to avoid any and every slip of the pen in copying page after page from any book, sacred or secular. Yet we may be sure that the original manuscript (better known as autograph) of each book of the Bible, being directly inspired by God, was free from all error. Those originals, however, because of the early date of their inception no longer exist.
Include me among the "Christians (who) readily admit..." that errors exist in the extant MSS. I don't see what you are trying to say here.
It might be profitable to the discussion if Bryan could elucidate why he thinks that it doesn't matter whether the autographa are inerrant.
What method SHOULD God have used to preserve His written Scriptures throughout history, as opposed to the one He used, to ensure that a correct and trustworthy copy of the Scriptures got into our hands years later, even 2000 years later?