Did God Allow Transmission Errors?

[JoeMama]

Did God know there would be transcription errors in the transmission of the "perfect autographs," but nevertheless choose not to prevent them?

[TRANSPONDER]

Did God know there would be transcription errors in the transmission of the "perfect autographs," but nevertheless choose not to prevent them?

Please show one example of an error?

Thank you. That is an thing to be clarified. It is a case of errors in the Bible. Factual, contradictions, additions and mistranslations. Aside denial that there are any such the question of Transmission of such errors arises, or permission of such errors. Transmission is obvious, or in some cases, not.

Unless one goes to a degree of science denial ....

Ok, thank you. All of the errors I have seen, seem to be based on what people believe and what world view they have. The problem with that is, they may be wrong. Opinions and beliefs are not enough to prove Bible erroneous, when they can be wrong on itself.

I suppose one could say that, if 'what people believe and what worldview' is understood as a choice between reason and evidence and evidence - denying Faith. Not just denial of palaeontology in favour of genesis - literalism but the faith based denial of the doubts about the Jesus story, which is what Christianity is really based on. I brought up the slam dunk contradiction or fabrication,rather of the penitent thief, and I saw some of the excuses that would not stand up for a minute unless people wanted to believe them. The "Worldview" behind what I recall as the 'writing from a different point of view" is any miserable excuse will do rather than accept the conclusion that Luke invented it; the supposed eyewitnesses (Mark and Matthew) could not credibly both have failed to mention that in talking of the two Robbers that reviled Jesus. The 'worldview' there is faithbased excuses, not to say denial.

[JoeMama]

[Replying to Miles in post #3]

"Nobody is perfect." Drop the mike, Miles.

[1213]

.... I brought up the slam dunk contradiction or fabrication,rather of the penitent thief,...

Please explain what do you mean with that?

[1213]

Is dirt the same thing as garbage? No.
Is manure the same thing as rubbish? No.
Is refuse necessarily worthless? No.
Is dung sewer trash? No.

But it is possible to have one word for them all.

[TRANSPONDER]

.... I brought up the slam dunk contradiction or fabrication,rather of the penitent thief,...

Please explain what do you mean with that?

In context it should be obvious:

"but the faith based denial of the doubts about the Jesus story, which is what Christianity is really based on. I brought up the slam dunk contradiction or fabrication,rather of the penitent thief, and I saw some of the excuses that would not stand up for a minute unless people wanted to believe them."

That Mark and Matthew totally ignore this marvellous and very significant event must be 'slam -dunk' evidence that it never happened. It is barefaced denial to try to pretend it is anything else.

Thus what I mean is that contradictions undermine Bible veracity and those who try to explain them away are doing self -delusion and faithbsased denial of compelling evidence. What I mean is what I say and what I say is what I mean. With the ol''sponder, what you see is what you get, even if it isn't all there is,.

[1213]

...That Mark and Matthew totally ignore this marvellous and very significant event must be 'slam -dunk' evidence that it never happened....

Sorry, I don't see any intelligent reason to agree with that.

[TRANSPONDER]

...That Mark and Matthew totally ignore this marvellous and very significant event must be 'slam -dunk' evidence that it never happened....

Sorry, I don't see any intelligent reason to agree with that.

Then that clearly explains why obvious contradictions in the Bible are denied to be contradictions at all. It doesn't matter It was never about getting the Believer to accept that what they believe is wrong, it is about explaining why they are.

Let's just set it out.
Mark 15.31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save. 32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

Matthew 27.41 Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said,42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. 43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. 44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.

Compare Luke 23.35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God. 36 And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar, 37 And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.
38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, This Is The King Of The Jews.
39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, isn't it clear that Luke has rewritten the original synoptic story as in Matthew and Mark to create this version where those soldiers offering the wine are made to join in the mockery. That in itself is evidence of alteration (and remember the undeniable change of the angel's message, so it isn't the first time Luke has done this), but the big one is the whole business of the penitent thief which Matthew and Mark ignore altogether. I can make up excuses myself, though they only create more problems (Like what did Luke know and when did he know it?) and not least the problem of Jesus rising on the First day, not the third. But any "Intelligent" person will have to concede that it looks like Luke rewrote the whole thing to make up this story about forgiveness and redemption.

And, just for jollies, wouldn't you, let's see what the gospel of Peter says

"[10] And they brought two wrongdoers and crucified the Lord in the middle of them. But he was silent as having no pain. [11] And when they had set the cross upright, they inscribed that THIS IS THE KING OF ISRAEL. [12] And having put his garments before him, they divided them up and threw as a gamble for them. [13] But a certain one of those wrongdoers reviled them, saying: 'We have been made suffer thus because of the wrong that we have done; but this one, having become Savior of men, what injustice had he done to you?' [14] And having become irritated at him, they ordered that there be no leg-breaking, so that he might die tormented." The mix of all the gospel material in a bit of a mess, really convinces me that this is not Original (as one commentator at least, argued) but is a late fabrication and the versions become more fantastical and dubious the later they are.

Which brings us to John. it shouldn't surprise us that there is no point in posting John 19 as there is no revilation by the priests or soldiers, let alone the crucified robbers, forget about one repenting and being saved. John contradicts the general synoptic tale of the abusing at the cross as he is known to differ from the synoptics in many places. The apologists excuse it (Judean material/Galilee material (1) but at least they don't just deny it without explanation, effectively calling anyone who disagree unintelligent.

The Christians expect to be treated with respect, but they don't treat their opponents with respect. However, that aside, why would a god who relied on this book to carry His message, allow it to get into such a mess? Or why would any intelligent (and logical) person conclude other than it was written by men and only by men, using some real material, perhaps, but no 'transmission' or even control, by a god. I shouldn't have to labour the point that it is not Intelligence that is the thing here, but faithbased denial of obvious, but unwelcome, evidence.

(1) For quite a while I have noted this ploy of giving a contradiction a Title and pretending that somehow explains it, like the entire addition (which is surely what it is) of the Other Feeding of 4,000 etc and 'The great Omission'(because it isn't in Luke' and then act like it isn't an issue. It is all part of the Great Con, ignoring obvious things wrong with the Bible and hoping nobody else will notice. Well, if the average bod in the street is anything like me, they won't much like people who try to bamboozle them to keep in authority and the money.

[1213]

...
Mark 15.31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save. 32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

Matthew 27.41 Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said,42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. 43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. 44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.

Compare Luke 23.35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God. 36 And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar, 37 And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.
38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, This Is The King Of The Jews.
39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, isn't it clear that Luke has rewritten the original synoptic story as in Matthew and Mark to create this version where those soldiers offering the wine are made to join in the mockery. ...

I think everyone should understand, the Gospels are witness testimonies. They are told by different persons, with different knowledge of matters. After Jesus was captured, disciples fled and were not all in the same place. So, logically, any reasonable person can see that they must have witnessed different sides of the whole event. For example Peter was close to Jesus at the judgment, John was close to the cross when Jesus was dying and Luke tells he collected information from many people who witnessed the events. And of course, people also remember and notice different things, which is why their memories are not identical. Also people have a different way to speak, some use more words and some tell things in condensed form. It would not be reasonable to expect genuine testimonies to be identical.

There is no proof that Luke rewrote anything. He may just have had more information than the others, because he collected information from different sources, as he tells in the beginning of his Gospel. It is possible that Matthew and Mark just were not in a place to hear and see everything, that is why they tell shorter version of some matters. Still, they all can be correct at the same time, just different amount of the whole story.

[historia]

Note, there is no hint of any exclusion of translation in the definition.

Okay, but specifically in the context of (biblical) textual criticism, a "transmission error" is an error introduced when copying the text. So, even though the term 'transmission' clearly has a broader meaning in other contexts, in the context we are discussing, it doesn't typically refer to translation.

It's also a bit odd to say that because various English translations use somewhat different English words to express an idea or word in the source text that somehow constitutes an 'error'. A text can be translated in different ways without the translation being 'wrong'.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
Mark 15.31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save. 32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

Matthew 27.41 Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said,42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. 43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. 44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.

Compare Luke 23.35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God. 36 And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar, 37 And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.
38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, This Is The King Of The Jews.
39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, isn't it clear that Luke has rewritten the original synoptic story as in Matthew and Mark to create this version where those soldiers offering the wine are made to join in the mockery. ...

I think everyone should understand, the Gospels are witness testimonies. They are told by different persons, with different knowledge of matters. After Jesus was captured, disciples fled and were not all in the same place. So, logically, any reasonable person can see that they must have witnessed different sides of the whole event. For example Peter was close to Jesus at the judgment, John was close to the cross when Jesus was dying and Luke tells he collected information from many people who witnessed the events. And of course, people also remember and notice different things, which is why their memories are not identical. Also people have a different way to speak, some use more words and some tell things in condensed form. It would not be reasonable to expect genuine testimonies to be identical.

There is no proof that Luke rewrote anything. He may just have had more information than the others, because he collected information from different sources, as he tells in the beginning of his Gospel. It is possible that Matthew and Mark just were not in a place to hear and see everything, that is why they tell shorter version of some matters. Still, they all can be correct at the same time, just different amount of the whole story.

No. They are presented as witness testimonies. But the contradictions (I will continue to argue) shows that, even given a basic story which I will conceded, they all adapted it to suit themselves, not just by adding stuff (as you say one can argue more information, though as I say, that just causes more problems) but they changed stuff. That John debunks the angelic message is compelling evidence, and that Luke changed the message to suit himself, is unarguable. The excuses presented are invalid and are just intended to push away unwelcome evidence. Your stock excuses of lapses of memory (for such memorable events) or having a different way to speak is not answering the points, but using excuses to ignore them.

I assert that no open -minded person will fail to see that it is incredible that Matthew and Mark would leave out the penitent thief if they had heard of it, or indeed the messianic declaration at Nazareth, or Antipas' involvement at the trial. In fact the evidence is plain to see (1) of Luke rewriting his gospel, blithely supposing that nobody else would have written one to contradict him.

You can present counters and rebuttals and welcome, but I know you will be in denial of plain evidence all the time, and it's just a matter of how open the minds of the readers are. And indeed how many and how influential the readers are. I have no doubts about the Case, I only have doubts about the message getting out.

(1) also with Acts when one compares it to Paul's letters.