"Darrell Stec"
webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
news:47c6c462$0$1115$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...> Suzanne wrote:
>
>>
>> "Darrell Stec"
webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
>> news:47c3039b$0$6990$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...>>>> On 25 Feb, 09:43, Darrell Stec
webpagesorcery.com>
>>>> wrote:>>>>> Suzanne wrote:
>>>>>>> To complicate matters, none of the earliest manuscripts of the New
>>>>>>> Testament of whatever books we now have, came with the titles
>>>>>>> those books of the bible now bear. Those titles were added much
>>>>>>> later.
>>>>>
>>>>>> No, actually they do retain many of the original titles...
>>>>>
>>>>> Suzanne, one can look at facsimiles of some of the oldest manuscripts
>>>>> we have to show you are dead wrong. Most of the books had titles added
>>>>> later.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense. There is no period at which these books were known under
>>>> any other title than that known to us. Vague claims that manuscripts
>>>> don't give the title, as evidence that they therefore had none (!?)
>>>> are rather silly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There goes the fundy Roger dodger lying for his Jesus again. Have you
>>> read
>>> Bart Ehrman yet? Look at what you wrote Roger, this is a tremendously
>>> stupid statement coming from someone as slimy as you are -- claims that
>>> manuscripts don't give the title as evidence that they therefore had
>>> none. If there were no titles attached they did not have titles.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> You seem particularly ignorant of early Christianity and its
>>>>> literature.
>>>>
>>>> This sort of claim made by atheists usually indicates that they are
>>>> relying on hearsay.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is precious coming from an ignorant fundy that you are. But then
>>> you certainly are a gem being one of the very few fundies in the UK.
>>>
>>>>> It was not until 170 CE that there was mention of four gospels.
>>>>
>>>> There is no discussion of the matter until Irenaeus, who takes it for
>>>> granted that there are and always have been only four gospels.
>>>> Considering that 99%% of all literature is lost, this attempt to argue
>>>> from silence is particularly cynical.
>>>>
>>>>> It was not until 190 CE that all four gospels were given names.
>>>>
>>>> This silly idea hardly needs discussion.
>>>>
>>>>> However the earliest manuscripts from about the fifth century show
>>>>> a later hand added titles.
>>>>
>>>> The earliest manuscripts are from the 3rd century, not the fifth.
>>>> Titles are usually written by a different hand, and in a different
>>>> colour.
>>>>
>>>>> Considering I have a formal education in theology, biblical study and
>>>>> original languages and you have none what makes you think you are
>>>>> better informed than I.
>>>>
>>>> Considering the basic errors of fact above, we need pay little
>>>> attention to this attempt to claim authority.
>>>>
>>>> Those who are well-informed usually manage to demonstrate it rather
>>>> than claim it.
>>>>
>>>>>> There are no original manuscripts at all to study.
>>>>>
>>>>> And there never were, at least as we understand them. What we now have
>>>>> are fragments of stories cobbled together, growing and diminishing as
>>>>> time when on.
>>>>
>>>> Proof that no autograph existed would be most interesting to see.
>>>> It's nonsense, of course.
>>>>
>>>>>> They have no originals at all. Neither do they for
>>>>>> the Old Testament. The amazing thing is, though,
>>>>>> that of these hand-copied copies, they agree with
>>>>>> one other to such an astounding degree of reliability.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again you are wrong. The extant copies vary widely from each other in
>>>>> both the Old and New Testaments books.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>
>>>>>But the earlies copies that we have found in the past 50 years show
>>>>> a huge diversity.
>>>>
>>>> No, they do not.
>>>>
>>>> I imagine this is all half-remembered repetition from Bart Ehrman's
>>>> attempt to encourage obscurantism. Plainly it succeeded.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Now days we have found literally thousands of older manuscripts and
>>>>>>> fragments, and the overwhelming conclusion we come to is that most
>>>>>>> of them were different in fact at times contradictory. Only the
>>>>>>> sameness remainsin the families of manuscripts that used a former
>>>>>>> one to copy.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, you have a lot wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> No Suzanne, it is you who are wrong. One only needs to look at the
>>>>> facsimiles of those fragments and manuscripts to find that what I say
>>>>> is correct.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense. And I am quite certain that little Daryl has no familiarity
>>>> with either, or indeed any interest in manuscripts.
>>>>
>>>>> Why do you think modern bibles have footnotes with alternate
>>>>> words and verses?
>>>>
>>>> Ahem. Every ancient text has variants. We're not discussing normal
>>>> textual variation but these absurd claims of wild differences.
>>>>
>>>>> I would demonstrate what I am talking about once you
>>>>> acquire the prerequisite education and learn how to read the biblical
>>>>> languages.
>>>>
>>>> Bluster noted.
>>>
>>> Precious coming from someone whose biblical scholarship consists of what
>>> he
>>> learned in a Fundy Sunday School.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Besides you did not understand what I wrote. It went over your head.
>>>>> What I am saying is that early fragments and manuscripts show many
>>>>> many
>>>>> changes not only from each other but also from what later manuscripts
>>>>> have.
>>>>
>>>> There are no significant differences, over and above the normal
>>>> transmission issues that affect every ancient text, and the biblical
>>>> text is the best preserved text that we have. Even printed bibles
>>>> have typos! So this is very misleading.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There you go again Roger, lying for Jesus.
>>>
>>> Bart Ehrman, (James A. Gray Professor and chair of the Department of
>>> Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) in
>>> his book Lost Christianities, The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths
>>> We
>>> Never Knew writes:
>>>
>>> "Most changes are careless errors that are easily recognized and
>>> corrected....Other kinds of changes are both more important and harder
>>> for
>>> modern scholars to detect. These are changes that scribes appear to
>>> have
>>> made in their texts intentionally. I say that they "appear" to have
>>> made
>>> such changes intentionally simply because the scribes are no longer
>>> around
>>> for us to inteview about their intentions. But some of the changes in
>>> our manuscripts can scarely be attributed to fatigue, carelessness, or
>>> ineptitude; instead they suggest intention and forethought."
>>>
>>> He goes on page after page of explaining what changes were made and
>>> where
>>> we
>>> can find them. More from Professor Ehrman:
>>>
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol05/Ehrman2000b.html
>>>
>>> Barry Hoberman in his article, Translating the Bible (The Atlantic
>>> Monthly Feb 1985) writes: "The most important ancient version of the Old
>>> Testament is the Greek Septuagint, originally produced for Greek-
>>> speaking Jews in Egypt. Parts of it date from as early as the third and
>>> second centuries B.C. As a translation, it is uneven in quality. In some
>>> cases where the Septuagint and the Masoretic text disagree, the
>>> Septuagint passage is clearly a bad translation of an underlying Hebrew
>>> text that was identical to the version of the passage found in Masoretic
>>> manuscripts. But in other instances the discrepancies are too marked to
>>> have been caused by poor translation."
>>>
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/85feb/trans2.htm
>>>
>>> From the Greek Text Of The New Testament:
>>> "Other critics have regarded the Alexandrian text as prior and have
>>> considered the Western text a corruption of the purer Alexandrian
>>> text-form. Some of these who have held this view are: Tischendorf
>>> (1868);
>>> Westcott and Hort (1881); B. Weiss (1899); Ropes (1926(; Lagrange
>>> (1935);
>>> and Metzger (1964). It would probably be safe to say that the majority
>>> of
>>> popular writers today are following the Westcott and Hort theory with
>>> some adaptation."
>>>
http://home.hiwaay.net/~wgann/sermons/greek%%20text.pdf
>>>
>>> How can that be, Roger dodgers own biblical expert, Metzer, contradicts
>>> Roger concerning corruption in the bible.
>>>
>>> Read these and weep Roger for once again you have been caught lying for
>>> Jesus just like your idol Eusebius. And notice I've provided links to
>>> information you cannot as dishonest as you are, erase.
>>>
>>> And let us look at one of Roger's "MINOR" alterations. It is pretty
>>> well
>>> established that the most ancient authorities (read that manuscripts)
>>> end
>>> Mark's gospel at Chapter 16 verse 8. Roger, that is basically the whole
>>> Resurrection story. Newer manuscripts have a Resurrection story. That
>>> is one hell of a minor typo.
>>>
>>>>>>> So if a 16th century manuscript was wrong, how does making
>>>>>>> thousands
>>>>>>> of copies of it right? Repeating a lie does not suddenly invoke the
>>>>>>> Cinderella syndrome.
>>>>>
>>>>>> No, didn't happen like you are thinking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it did. You haven't the foggiest idea of what higher biblical
>>>>> criticism is about.
>>>>
>>>> I must infer that little Daryl has in reality little idea what textual
>>>> criticism is about. If he had, he wouldn't be invoking the long
>>>> defunct 'higher criticism' here, in the context of a discussion of the
>>>> lower criticism.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just in case anyone thinks that Roger the dodger knows what he is
>>> talking
>>> about I might point out that he can't even correctly spell a name that
>>> is
>>> printed just a few sentences above the material he is quoting. But
>>> Roger's
>>> ignorance is not just my opinion. Let us look at what the biblical
>>> scholar
>>> James Robinson has to say about his sloppy research:
>>>
>> Darrell, you are presenting only one side and it shows.
>> It's like you have not read any rebuttals to the comments
>> that you are making against the Bible.
>
> Those rebuttals especially from Roger are not rebuttals. He offers no
> explanation and not evidence. Besides I know all the rebuttals. I use to
> use them. I studied to become a priest and I know all the Christian
> answers presently and those given by the Early Christian writers all the
> way up to C.S Lewis and Chesterton and forward.
>
If you studied to become a priest, that does not mean
that you have heard all the rebuttals. It means that you
heard all the rebuttals that Catholics read.
>
> It is because I HAVE studied and can read scripture in the original and do
> know of the various versions of manuscripts that I have discovered what a
> bunch of bull Christians have been feed.
>
I don't know where you are getting your ideas that other
Christians are not as studied as you are, but quite a few
of them are very, very studied in theological matters, and
they have studied much on their own. Many of us have also
read scripture in the original languages. Are you not aware
of this?
>
>> You are smart and
>> I can see that you have learned a lot. But you have not
>> been thorough enough. I believe that you look for what
>> fits what you already believe,
>
> Not hardly. I believed what Christians believed so much so that I gave up
> my life as it were to become a priest. But the danger of really educating
> a seminarian is that they can learn to read for themselves and do not have
> to depend upon being spoonfed (as you are) as to what the scriptures
> really
> say as opposed to the poor and biased translations to hide facts from the
> lay Christian.
>
Darrell, I appreciate what you are saying and I believe you
that you did have that beginning. But you are very mistaken
when you say that I have been "spoonfed" what I believe.
That is a completely untrue statement. What I have learned,
I've learned from the Lord. I don't think you understand
this. I can try to tell you. I can pray that the Lord will show
me something, such as the meaning of something in the
Bible. He will (himself) lead me to the right things and he
also communicates with me in my heart and tells me things.
>
>
>> but that you stop short of
>> finding out the truth about the criticisms against the Bible.
>
>
> How would you know? You can't even begin to understand the arguments of
> Higher Biblical Criticism because first you have to learn the languages,
> then the anthropology and then the archaeology and then the social
> customs.
>
You are making me to smile. How would I know? Who do
you think you are talking to? Why would you think that
the Lord would send a Christian to you that doesn't know
anything about "higher Biblical criticism?" or that has not
studied in other languages? And that has no knowledge of
anthropology or even archaeology?...or social customs.
But these are not the things that have caused you to turn
away. It's a matter of what is real that has not taken place
inside of you. It's only through the Holy Spirit that you
will understand the things that I've been telling you.
He is the catalyst, Darrell. Look at John 4:4-26, and ask
the Lord to reveal himself to you.
>
>> No Book couild be so incompetent as you are making
>> out that you think the Bible is.
>
> You don't think so? So then why do we have so many different versions
> with
> so many different and sometimes mutually exclusive translations?
>
Darrell, I am not pushing the KJV version as the only
way of understanding the Bible. But if you have read
it and understand it's language, it is a fine version to
read. A translation is not a transferring of word for
word representation from another language, it is the
translation of what the words say that makes a good
translation.
>
>> Don't you understand
>> that? Your claims against the KJV Bible is a prime
>> example of what I am talking about. You sound as
>> theough you have read negative websites and their
>> claims without checking them out to see if they are
>> accurate.
>
> That is totally wrong. I know what the KJV says. I also know what the
> other various manuscripts say in their original languages. Do you? I
> know
> the answer is no and therefore you are simply no qualified to make that
> determination. All you can do is read the English and have faith in the
> faith of the translators.
>
Yes, Darrell, I do know what the manuscripts say in their
languages. I've studied it for many, many, many years.
And, no, you don't know me and whether or not I am
qualified to make such a determination, I am able to do
that. When I was growing up in San Antonio, Texas,
the children that went to the Catholic church said that
they were not allowed to read the Bible for themselves,
and that only the priests were qualified to do that and
to understand it. It made me very sad to think that they
didn't even read the Bible. The Bible can easily be
understood by ones studying the Bible and praying to
the Lord to reveal to them the meaning that is being
conveyed. When you put your trust in the Lord to
lead you in that respect, he will do just that. Would you
like a sample? Here is one....
>
In Genesis, when God made woman, he called her in
Hebrew a "knegdo." This is the word that is in the
Bible as a "helpmeet." This does not mean "helper."
It means one that is "as in one's presence." In other
words the man can look at the Christian wife and
see her relationship to him, and in so doing see
as looking into a mirror his relationship with God.
That the wife is a help, meet for him, means that
she is tailor made for him in the mystical union of
the state of marriage, for there is more than just a
physcial union and a soul-mate union, but there is
also a spiritual union that God gives to a couple.
When God presented Eve to Adam after he had
created her, coming along with her to her husband
was the Lord, himself. This is, of course, a marriage
where both people are submitted to doing things
the Lord's way. A wife should be respectful to her
husband and a husband should have a sacrificial
kind of love for her, as it says in the Bible, as
Christ also love the church and gave himself for
her.
>
A priest, pastor, preacher that "runs" a church, is
not the head of that church. He is the "undershepherd,"
and the head of the church is Jesus, himself, who
interacts with the leader in order to produce the kind
of congregation of people who will band together for
the purpose of telling others the gospel, fellowship
with one another as well as edification of each of the
members of that church. But the Lord also speaks to
the indvidual church members and leads them to be
participants in the life of the church, and especially
in evangelism, inviting people to come to church
and in outreach as well.
>
>> Most of the corrections in the KJV are
>> textual, and are not theological. If you would go to
>> a website that defends that version, you would see
>> this.
>
> But I know those websites are wrong because I can read the languages and
> those who write the websites either cannot, or simply lie about the
> translations.
>
Darrell, they don't lie about the translations.
>
> For instance there is only one phrase in all the gospels that mention the
> father, the son, and the holy spirit together. I'll let you do the
> homework to figure out which one. And that phrase is NOT in some of the
> earliest manuscripts. And it is those later ones with the insertion that
> became the basis of the Jerome's Latin Vulgate, which influence Erasmus'
> Greek Text, which ultimate became the basis of the KJV.
>
I don't know the place that you are talking about right
off hand, Darrell. Are you speaking of the Johannine Comma
by any chance? The words spoken before Jesus ascended to
heaven when he gave the great commmission?
>
> Now if you think the KJV was authentic look in your bible and see if the
> Preface of the Translators is still in it. Look and see if you can find
> the books of the Apocrypha (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch
> First and Second Maccabees, Extra-long versions of Esther and Daniel,
> First
> and Second Esdras, Prayer of Manasses, and Susanna) are in your version of
> the bible. All of those were in the original 1611 version of the KJV.
>
The Catholic Bible has the Apocrypha in it and I have read
it. It is not the the KJV. It is not scripture and does not meet
the criteria for being scripture. Those are not excluded as
reading, such as Maccabees is a history. But those are not
scripture.
>
> You especially will not see the Preface because the original translators
> specifically said the the scriptures can never be inerrant. Your Fundy
> churches do not want you to know what those translators wrote nor the
> explanations of why the scriptures they translated can never be inerrant.
>
No, you are wrong. My church does not tell someone what
version of the Bible to read or to bring with them to the
church.
>
> You simply have a lot to learn. But will bury your head in the sand.
>
>
God bless you, Darrell.
>
Suzanne
