On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:11:01 -0400, "Ralph"
yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
>"Christopher A. Lee"
optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:3g9t749n0bfrka507l1fa5p6a2sn1tqlng@4ax.com...>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:51:41 -0400, "Ralph"
yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>"Christopher A. Lee"
optonline.net> wrote in message
>>>news:b67t74hljmvefis286j5711nsqs2v9qjnf@4ax.com...>>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:04:07 -0400, "Ralph"
yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In alt.religion.christian lsend...@
hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You had plenty of time to post your fantasies about there being
>>>>>>>> thousands
>>>>>>>> and thousands and thousands of comlete manuscripts of your bible,
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> was nothing but a baldfaced lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not a lie. I just don't have the time to go through all my notes up
>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>> attic to find sources for you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Google is your friend. Your excuse is lame. When I googled, I found
>>>>>> NOTHING remotely similar to your claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>I posted off of what I had studied and presented papers for in
>>>>>school. Sure,
>>>>>google is easy but that wasn't my reference. The research I did for
>>>>>one of
>>>>>my classes is all locked away. I thought is was in the attic in one
>>>>>of the filing
>>>>>cabinets but it must be in storage.
>>>>>
>>>>>REPLY: Wherever it is, it is wrong!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Also, rather than run to google, I'd use my own library with real
>>>>>reference
>>>>>works. Heck, even the primer, "From God to Us" by Geisler & Nix in
>>>>>chapter 12 states basically the same thing I posted. There the
>>>>>papyruses
>>>>>mentioned, P52, 45-47, 66, 72, 75 are all dated from 117-225. Rev is
>>>>>the
>>>>>last written book most often dated 96AD. So my original notation of
>>>>>manuscripts within 30 yrs is well within the ball park.
>>>>>
>>>>>REPLY: No, it isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And as to
>>>>>variants,
>>>>>when one actually understands how the tabulations are made, including
>>>>>misspellings and wrong word divisions, disparagement becomes more
>>>>>of a personal bent rather than a scholastic one.
>>>>>
>>>>>REPLY: Some textual scholars say this and they might be right. It still
>>>>>stands, however, that the NT has more variants then can be counted. Best
>>>>>thing for a theist with a limited intellectual capacity, might be to
>>>>>double
>>>>>check your sources.
>>>>>
>>>>>The OT manuscripts, because of the strict Jewish traditions, have
>>>>>extremely low variants. The DS amazed both the religious as well
>>>>>as the secular communities on this point.
>>>>>
>>>>>REPLY: Not that many texts to compare.
>>>>
>>>> Please try to use proper ">" marks.
>>>
>>>For some reason my newsreader and that of lsenders aren't compatible. I
>>>really don't want to waste my time on a post to him so I just label the
>>>reply. I know it is confusing and that is one reason I don't reply to all
>>>of
>>>his crap. Please visualize ">" marks where you see 'REPLY'.
>>
>> Then either put them in manually or get a better newsreader.
>>
>> Because sooner or later as responses get trimmed it will look as
>> though you said it not him.
>
>I have a better suggestion, why don't you just not read my posts. That will
>solve your problem.
Everybody's problem, stupid newbie.
YOU don't do it right and then blame everybody else.
