Sheshbazzar

Or to rephrase it,
It makes a lot of difference because we cannot be reasonably certain where the message came from, from God, from Satan, or from the Bible writers of their own accord,
How do you propose that people find out where the Bible writers got their information from?

Hundreds of different denominations, each claiming that -their- interpretations and doctrinal views are the true ones, and that others, even of their fellow christians, that don't happen to agree with -them- are going to suffer burning eternally in hell-fire;
Sounds one hell of a lot more like a message proceeding from Satan and his demons, than a message from a loving and forgiving god.
The message, as it is given -makes- the source very suspect.
And then there is that "by their -fruits- you shall know them" factor. Christiaity's historical record of conduct does not speak at well for their claims.

Roger Pearse

You are confusing composition with transmission, tho.

This involves various category confusions and presuppositions.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Allah. Looking forward to your post to this effect in an Islamic forum.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Learn about the transmission of texts in general. Quite why God comes to be involved in a general question you don't explain.

Johnny Skeptic

Yes, I am interested in where the early church fathers got their information from. That has to do with the transmission of texts, right? If so, where did they get their information from? Who were their sources? Were their sources reliable? Did their sources claim to be eyewitnesses? Not interested? No?, I thought that that was the case, but yet for some strange reason you suggested that I learn about the transmission of texts when you are not actually interested in that issue yourself.

Of course, the transmission of texts is complicated and made less reliable by the issue of interpolations. For instance, if Paul did not write 1st Corinthians chapter 15, that makes the Gospels a good deal less reliable than they already are. Interpolations in ancient texts are not just the obvious ones.

The Dagda

I once saw a really interesting documentary about elision, transcription errors, and copying problems in The Bible. Anyone who thinks that any text could be copied in the manner it was, without errors or elisions or copying mistakes, is frankly a moron.

Wish I could find it, it ran through all the methodology of copyist pointing to mistakes that we could actually show were made. Red sea, Reed sea, all that sort of stuff. From plain translation errors, to people deciding it didn't quite say what they wanted to say, and so there own interpretation crept in.

bacht

One of the pleasant surprises I've heard about the Dead Sea Scrolls was the confirmation of a fairly high level of fidelity in the replication of the Masoretic text family during the early Middle Ages. I don't think we know much about the transmission fidelity before Hasmonean times, or even how many text traditions existed (?)

Johnny's question is another fundie-baiting gambit. He should know there are a fair number of professional and amateur bible scholars who visit here. The regular posters have left the literalist approach behind, if they ever followed it.

The Dagda

Oh I'm well aware of that. I think I was just playing a game of prod the fundie myself. Literalists are fun.

Exciter

Well that's one of the points you keep missing Zx432, you haven't provided any credible evidence of what the message is, only a bunch of childish emotional outbursts, and then total denial that you make a bunch of silly mistakes in your "argument", lol.


Um, somehow I highly doubt that you've done it through textual-critical examination [lol]

Your thread on Jesus and the Resurrection really went over like a tinfoil balloon, you have to keep reading a simple myth over and over again, but don't understand that it is just a simple myth, lol.


Well not in the real world, you wouldn't really want to meet me in person ZX432, especially since you can't handle simple criticism on an internet message board, lol.

I have read all your posts and especially the threads you started. They've either been locked or you abandon them, after getting your shellfish handed back to you, of course not without you sounding like a parrot with "Wait and see, you'll be sorry! I can't wait to see your face, la-la-la-la-la.


Um, yes it is a word, but don't take my word for it, lol!

ZX432 have you ever heard of a book called a dictionary?

If you are not allowed to read any books that might contain words that are vile and disgusting, I'll link you to a few on-line dictionaries:


You can also GOOGLE "um definition", it'll give you a whole bunch more links to the um, word um.

Been there, done that, foshizzle. This is an internet message board, but i do agree that my "lols" don't belong in BC&H, and I do have to respect that fact, this was however started in the GRD forum and moved before I could respond to yet another of your empty cries.

You can stay here and defend your posts, but somehow I know you won't because you can't. This a part of the forums where telling people they'll go to hell when they criticize your assertions, that you sound unintelligent by threatening people with your imaginary mythycal God so please, Um, stick around and defend your position.


eta: I have a shovel you can borrow when your's breaks, or I'll throw you a rope when you need help getting out of the deep black hole to Nowhere's Ville you keep digging....

funinspace

No, I understand those differences. ZX432, was harping on the quality of the copies, in relation to the unknown originals. I was pointing out additions, which related to transmission, as you say.

Yeah…I wasn't attempting to provide optimal labeling for each type of textual issue. It really won't matter, as ZX432 has shown over and over that he has no interest in engaging in a dialog.