Nazaroo

I'll just take three of your points here:

Agreed. But this way of wording the description of the 'evidence' sidesteps the all important fact that we don't possess "every one of the earliest mss".

That is the Achilles heel of the 'textual evidence'.


This is not a statement of fact, but rather a 'wish list'. Textual criticism *could* do this, if ever it was put on a plausible scientific footing.

As textual criticism is currently practiced, it is unscientific, unreliable, and hence unconvincing.

Its this simple:

Going by the evidence *Petersen* examined, the case is ambiguous.

Going by a more complete and thorough examination of *all* of the evidence, a tentative scientific position can be arrived at, which favours authenticity (Johannine authorship, carefully defined).

hatsoff

"Extant mss," then. We may not have them all, but we have enough to make certain determinations, including this one.

What can one say to that?

Nazaroo

Rather than reinvent the wheel, those wishing to see a brief critique of Metzger can go here:

Basic Critique of Metzger <-- Click Here.

Diogenes the Cynic

There is no such thing as an atheist or agnostic "apologist." It is true some atheists have argued against the authenticity of historical claims made by Christians. Some also disparage organized religion as an institution, though most don't. None of that has anything to do wth critical scholarship of the PA, though.
Because it's not true. The case for an "inerrant" Bible would not be helped one whit by demonstrating the authenticity of the PA. I find it to be an odd suggestion that these alleged atheist critics you're alluding to would single out that particular story as being important to discredit. It's actually a rather benign story as afr as atheists are concerned. It's got a nice ethical message to it and it doesn't even contain anything supernatural. Why do you think atheists would conspire to discredit that pericope in particular?
The criticism is what I keep waiting for. why waste everybody's time with irrelevant speculations about the motives of atheists and agnostics? What does that have to do with critical scholarship of the PA.
If you have evidence, then why don't you just cut to the chase and produce it. Otherwise you look evasive.
I'm sure he would have appreciate your tepid endorsement.
Metzger was widely regarded as one of the preeminent textual critics in the world. He was arguably the world's greatest authority on Greek New Testament manuscripts. He was also an ordained Christian minister which is going to make it difficult for you attribute an atheistic, anti-Christian motives to him. And notwithstanding your (frankly laughable) attempts to denigrate his importance in the field, you're going to have a high mountain to climb to "critique" him.

Incidentally, I notice you're speaking of him in the present tense. Perhaps you're not aware that Dr. Metzger passed away a couple of weeks ago.
I expect a declaration of your thesis. I expect you to tell us what you are going to argue for and outline what kind of evidence you're going to use. If you were writing a term paper, you'd be getting an F so far.

jgibson000

So far as I can see, no one has denied this. But that is not the issue.

The issue was the truth of an entirely different claim, namely,

Quote:

Many atheists and agnostics are under the misconception that this passage must be attacked as part of some plan to dethrone the authority of the 'bible'

and whether you could substantiate it by providing the names of the "atheists and agnostics" who, according to you, have laboured under the particular misconception you speak of.

From your equivocation above and your consequent avoidance of doing what you were asked by a moderator to do (i.e., to name names), it looks like you can't.

JG

Nazaroo

This is a statement of personal opinion, and as such doesn't require 'references'.

I'll be happy to delete the opinion, if the moderator will delete your message.

jgibson000

.

Really? So it's a claim that has no basis in reality?

One then has to wonder how many other of your global and apodictic claims should be taken not as you present them (i.e., as objective and well grounded truths), but as personal "opinions" that are as unsubstantiated as they are unsubstantiatable, that are wholly without merit, and that in the end do not warrant any attention whatsoever.

Why should he? My message is only a restatement of a message from him (Diogenes) that you refused to answer. I wonder if you have the cojones to dictate to him the terms you've dictated to me?

JG

Diogenes the Cynic

It actually appears to be an assertion of fact, not opinion. It now appears that you are conceding you have no ability to support the assertion. Regardless of whether you want to call it an opinion or an assertion of fact, you should still expect to be challenged either way. Expressing a personal opinion is fine, but don't expect that framing something as an opinion will make you immune to questions, critiques or challenges, especially when said opinions carry implied ad hominems against your opponents.
There is no need to delete the opinion. The challenges to it and your inability to respond to the challenges can stand on their own. There is no prohibition against posting assertions you can't back up. Just don't expect them to stand unchallenged.

jgibson000

Or that framing something as an "opinion" relieves anyone of the burden of proof.

JG

Nazaroo

Stick to the topic, TC of John 7:53-8:11.

I request that the moderator split off the last 6 posts from this thread please.

Make a new thread called, Opinion: is it a sin?

I'm retracting the opinion. There is no need to defend what I don't care to assert.

Its off-topic.

Start moderating, or ask another moderator to moderate this thread, since you are participating as a poster.

You are allowing the thread to be poisoned with spam.