Terry, Thanks again. I agree with the general point you make in discrediting the WTS argument about inspired scripture. We must however avoid becoming as biased as they are in how we present evidence, which is sometimes out of date and out of context. JWs are masters of such cleverness. I do not wish to fight cleverness with cleverness.
Awake! September 8,1957 "..there are probably 50,000 errors in the Bible."
I would not wish to rely on any WTS source. Moreover, that article was 1957 when relatively few ancient manuscripts had been studied and published. In the last 50 years there has been progess in textual, historical & scholarly understanding. Most errors were due to copying by hand, but some were deliberate alterations. It has been established which are which. I'll provide lists if you really want - have you a few months to spare?
If most are eliminated by "modern methods" (of the ones known) how many remain? Which are they? How serious are they to establishing the certainty of proof texts?
Firstly, I have no interest in the whole notion of 'proof texts' - (the letter kills but the spirit gives life) in any case nothing can be proved by scriptures! I am merely supporting the success of modern textual criticism. Many steps are involved: compare large number of copies; establish date of each copy; identify oldest manuscripts; apply detailed guidelines to determine reliability of each; compare old copies to reconstruct original. Normally oldest is more reliable (there are known exceptions) etc etc.
Assemble chronologically, say each has 10 copying errors, but these would be dissimilar & appear randomly - easy to eliminate the vast majority in this way. On the other hand, if several manuscripts repeated the same errors, you can identify a common source. Then tabulate the highest frequency of agreement for a given sentence. This is oversimplifying methods actually used, there are many many steps taken over many years,but a high degree of certainty IS possible and has been attained.
Because of the number & quality of manuscripts now available, we can prove for example that the KJV of 1 John 5:7 was and is spurious with 5 words added. The spurious passage was actually found in Greek manuscript, so seemed authentic. The methods used subsequently revealed that older manuscripts excluded these 5 words. We now know the error was introduced around 1520CE by someone writing out a complete Greek text just to convincingly plant these words. Erasmus, the scholar who produced the Greek text later used for the KJV included these planted words unknowingly. After research however, he removed the words from later texts, and the error is now clearly traceable to a particular family of latin versions.
Only ten percent contain the entire New Testament
Only 10%?........ 10% of >5,000 is >500. This is a truly phenomenal number in terms of ancient documents. And some of the other portions are several books. There does not exist such riches of any other ancient documentation of any kind on such a scale, so lets have this in perspective please. Most of your points have much merit and don't need additional WTS style spin. Its okay to acknowledge that it is possible to obtain a pretty accurate text these days (Westcott & Hort text in Greek Interlinear is excellent) without you having to believe it is from God or inspired.
Contrary to your statement above; modern methods are merely educated guesses.
Yeah, just like scientific theories are merely educated guesses!
Hardly what you could base a strong certainty on for purposes of proof of Divine messege being intact.
You seem to be referring to the JW concept of a Divine Message - where the exact wording or 'proof texts' would be so important. It may come as a surprise but most Christians don't think of the Bible in that way at all.
