D.Castles <> wrote in message .

> “Rowland Croucher: Yes, we now have archaeological and manuscript evidence

> and materials that make the Bible, according to the Chairman of the New

> Revised Standard Version Committee, about 99.5% accurate. We’re pretty

sure > that recent translations of the Bible, unless they had a particular bias,

> and that’s another issue, like the new RSV, are about as accurate as we

> need, and that’s good.”

>

> Rowland, I have asked you (and others) many times on this NG to present

some > evidence to backup claims made in the NT that you peddle as historical

fact. You > have failed to do this, but here you are saying that the bible is 99.5%

> accurate!

How’s this, from one of the most respected New Testament Greek scholars alive, Dr. Bruce Metzger (chairman of translators of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible):

‘There are 24,000 [ancient] manuscripts of the New Testament in existence’…

‘[It] has survived in a purer form than any other great book – a form that is 99.5% pure’…

O.K. Dave, over to you: produce an equally reputable scholar who counteracts this…

(And weren’t you going to critique Lee Strobbel’s ‘The Case for Christ’? I’m patient… 🙂

> Do you mean factually, historically,

Yes, and yes.

> according to some doctrine

No, I want my Bible translation to be unbiassed theologically (which is why I prefer the NRSV against, say, the more ‘evangelical’ NIV or the more liberal Moffatt translation or the liturgical Jerusalem Bible…)

> or

> merely that the translation is accurate when measured

against……………. > what?.

Any other ancient material you’d like to name 🙂

Rowland Croucher —

Shalom! Rowland Croucher http://jmm.aaa.net.au (5200+ articles, 1000+ links, 1400 funny stories!)