Haran

Ironic...

What's wrong with my blanket assertion? After all, you and Yuri made one...

Actually wanting people to go to eternal hell would be misanthropy.

Vinnie, I would assume that you believe all work on the classics or other historical works should simply be stopped as well because scholars will never know what the original text said? Not even close?

I think they can get close to the original text and probably have gotten close. You may see major differences in the text, but I don't see such major differences that a Christian cannot remain a Christian based on biblical teachings.

BTW, the only author I have caught you mentioning with respect to text critical issues is Koester who seems to have influenced most of your expressed views. Do you think he is also a fraud?

Oh well, I find this blanket charge fo 'fraud' just plain silly from people who seem to think of themselves as intellectuals. Sorry...

Yuri Kuchinsky

No, Vinnie, I wouldn't be so radical myself... I'd say that only about 90% of it is total bull.

Quote:

Out of curiousity, you seem to be disgruntled with the field like I am now, so why do you keep studying? What keeps you going? Surely you can find something better and more productive to do? Old habits die hard? Vinnie

No, this is not how I approach these things... If anything, when I see all these abuses and dishonesty in the biblical field, it creates the opposite effect -- it gives me an added incentive to go there and do the thing right.

Don't you see it that I'm an ancient history buff? I've been long fascinated by ancient history even before I started to investigate the early Christian history specifically.

Why do people do crossword puzzles? Because they have this urge to have the thing solved. They get a deep satisfaction to see it solved, although they get no practical rewards of any kind when they solve it. So I would guess that this is also the case with any true historian. We, historians, just get a deep satisfaction when we see some historical problem solved (or when we think that we're getting closer to the solution).

OTOH, when a bureaucrat approaches some problem in need of a solution, his/her first reaction is, How will my boss and the other heavies look at this, and how will this affect my professional career? What will I get out of this?

Well, it's quite obvious that, in NT studies today, there are all too many bureaucrats, and hardly any true history buffs... When they see some new text in need of an investigation, or any new theory that challenges the received opinions, their first thought is to run for the exit!

Just think of it, a leading French biblical scholar (Boismard) published a book *11 years ago*, in which he argued that a mysterious medieval English text shows all sorts of unique parallels with the ancient Aramaic gospels, and with other important ancient texts... But not a hair has stirred on the heads of any of those nearly 10,000 members of the Society of Biblical Literature who are native English speakers!

What does it matter if it's a medieval *English* text? Quick, run for the exit! -- there might be some new ideas and evidence out there, coming at you!

What a bunch of pathetic zombies... what a bunch of cowards.

Best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Are you kidding, JD? This sort of a polemic has no chance to get published. OTOH, if I really wanted to publish something in a professional journal, I'd think that half of the articles on my webpage (especially among the more recent stuff) are good enough to be published in a journal. They'd just need to be toned down a bit, that's all.

But I guess I simply don't have enough respect for these publications, and for the folks who edit them to bother about it too much...

Yours,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Not a chance, Haran. They are still hopping all over those Egyptian sands looking for that Mirage, like a bunch of dazed and bewildered desert gerbils...

Quote:

You may see major differences in the text, but I don't see such major differences that a Christian cannot remain a Christian based on biblical teachings.

We're not talking about faith here, but about science...

Quote:

BTW, the only author I have caught you mentioning with respect to text critical issues is Koester who seems to have influenced most of your expressed views. Do you think he is also a fraud?

Folks like Koester are more genuinely dazed and confused rather than just being frauds.

Quote:

Oh well, I find this blanket charge fo 'fraud' just plain silly from people who seem to think of themselves as intellectuals. Sorry...

"Fraud" just sums it up nicely. There are also many synonyms like fallacy, misrepresentation, distortion, sophistry, disregard for the evidence, etc.

And then, there's also the collective delusion part. With such synonyms as phantasm, self-deception, wilful blindness, bungling, incompetence, and following the false track...

I hope this helps.

Yours,

Yuri.

Vinnie

Its like 10,000 spoons when all ya need is a knife....

But I briefly evidenced my claim. Textual criticism lies underneath all NT research. These scholars shouldd knoww better.

Of course but then maybe "wanting NT scholars to be frauds" is misanthropy?

At any rate, shouldn't one "want" those who don't accept Jesus to go to hell? I mean, sure you'd rather see them repent and go play harps in heaven but if they don't repent then "going to hell" must naturally be what man--with infinite sin deserves. I mean, isn't it "good" for horrible monsters like humans to pay for their infinite crimes against God?

Each text is different of course. The level of tampering with ECWs is fairly high IMO but I will say that if the apologists are correct, and that the Bioble--comparatively, is better than the rest, than the rest are worthless because the Bible has lousy attestation.

This assumes there actually were "original texts" for all NT works. How many versions of John and Mark were there? 2 Cor a composite doc? Q??? Thomas??? Does not the fact of a MIXED TEXT" already in the 2d century scream loudly to you???

What evidence do you have that they can actually get close to the originals? Sounds like presumption and special pleading. Like I said, if lacking EARLY manuscript attestation is present, agnosticism is the prudent course of action on the veracity of the text. Someone refute this if possible. Its a simple tautology:

If you have no evidence = agnpsticism?

Somebody? Anybody?

I mean, "maybe" most of the NT is fairly well preserved but you have no way of documenting or evidencing this assertion.

Well I am a kjv only advocate myself. The textus receptus is the pure unadulterated word of God and I do not see any errors in it which should compel a Christian to abandon their faith.

In actuality, there are enough errors (textual and otherwise) in the NT to dismiss contemporary Christianity as a composite blending of fiction.

There are degrees of bad scholarship. Koester fares better than others but in his Intro NT he articulates some nonsense about "most of the NT must be judged to be very accurate textually." That was not an exact quote but it was an accurate rendering of Koester's viewpoint. So yeah, Koester makes the wall of shame too! There is no need for being Lukewarm, Mr Koester. Follow your own arguments through to their logical conclusion.

Don't apologize.
It would be easy for you to demonstrate your view. Just evidence the textual stability of early Christian writings by providing documentation which shows their status within the first 100 years of their composition. Oh wait, you have virtually nothing to go on but you still "think they can get close to the original text and probably have gotten close."

If anyone can document the textual reliability of ECW's I would love to see an argument????

Remember, the text lies at the bottom of all historical reconstruction here. Its all source and method. If you can't establish or substantiate the historical valdiity of the sources you are using to reconstruct xianity then you have a foundation of sand......

Vinnie

Vinnie

Only 90?

Haran

Sure there's a chance. They look to the Alexandrian text, Yuri, because (among other reasons) Alexandria was a center in which "ancient textual critics" worked on and preserved what we consider the Greek classics. You make it sound as if scholars uncovered some old papyrus manuscripts in Egypt and just decided that they must be the best because they are the oldest known. This is not the case.

There are degrees of difference. I think you overstate the differences.

Good grief... I've met a few of them, and I would have to disagree...completely... Yuri, don't be surprised if you turn away even someone who might be sympathetic to your armchair scholarship because of these kinds of unreasonable statements.

They hurt your case...

Haran

Know better than what? Should they know your opinion? Is that better?

Sure. However, misanthropy is also mistrust of fellow human beings. Lumping all NT scholars creates a pretty large and diverse group of people and most anyone would infer from your comments that you mistrust this whole diverse group of people who probably hold a wide range of beliefs. Regardless, the point was that you made a blanket assertion which is unreasonable.

Oh well, I see no reason to continue this part of the discussion because most people will probably recognize unreasonable generalizations when they see them.

Vinnie, I think you're playing the "I'm mad at religion and I'll show them" card. God doesn't even want people to go to hell. Why should Christians?

Are you just playing with these comments? Is this the way you felt when you were a Christian? Did you want people to go to hell, Vinnie?

Anyway, this is all for another forum...

Tell me something though Vinnie. How is the text so different? I can go back to the earliest fragments that we have and still recognize the text as almost exactly what I have in front of me today. Yuri even seems to say above that his theory would lead us back to the Byzantine or even the KJV text. Ok. Big difference... Scientifically speaking, yeah, there are differences between the NIV and KJV, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, and Bezae. Is the text ultimately recognizable? You bet.

First of all, you are requiring me to buy into some theories that I do not subscribe to. I find it highly probable that those who seek to find different layers within a text will find them and not necessarily because they are there. Sort of like the Bible codes... It is very easy to miss the forest for the trees in dealing with this stuff and I think some have. There are others who do not believe some of these things, however. How much have you read of textual criticism? Hopefully you have formed your strongly held beliefs on more than Koester and English translations of the Bible...

Look, it takes a certain amount of faith on your part to make the leap to a completely fluid unrecognizable-to-us "original" that will never be recovered as well.

Personally, I find it much more believable that the overall content found its way to us with a relatively low number of modifications considering the time that has passed. (Look at the myriad English translations today. I shudder to think what future textual critics will do with today's translations. Many will miss the forest, I suspect...)

Perhaps if you are a literalist and fundamentalist.

Perhaps one should listen to those (not just the two or three of whom one happens to agree with) who probably know more about the languages, the documents, and the NT in general? Have you ever thought that maybe some of these scholars have far more knowledge, experience, and understanding than a 20-something who has read a few books? You dismiss way too easily, methinks.

Even a sand castle when touched by the sea can retain enough of its shape to be fully recognizable...

Vinnie

Not my opinion. Common knowledge about intellectual integrity.

[quote]Sure. However, misanthropy is also mistrust of fellow human beings. Lumping all NT scholars creates a pretty large and diverse group of people and most anyone would infer from your comments that you mistrust this whole diverse group of people who probably hold a wide range of beliefs. Regardless, the point was that you made a blanket assertion which is unreasonable.[/qote]

My point of view is very tenable. I am a militant agnostic on the textual stability of ECW's. Until you or any other scholar can actually demonstrate that the texts are stable and liek the original, all NT research which is built on this flimsy foundation, is BS!

Not really. Most people are idoits who don't know anything and believe what they are conditioned to believe. Maybe what yuo meant is most "debaters" online can see through simple logical fallacies?

Christians should want God's holy justice to be served. That means Christians should want sinners who refuse to repent, to suffer eternal torment in hell. Sure you may want repentence more but for those who do not repent, do you not agree with God's will for them or not? Surely God's choice for them must be them most ethical and best. Lake of sulfur it is evil scum!

No of course I'm not playing! I subscribe to penal substition and think that starving african children who have been raped and have brains that barely function inherited original sin from Adam and are infinitely guilty before an infinitely holy God. These starving, abused children are not victims, they are sinners in the hands of an angry God. Traducianism! They deserve eternal death in hell for their evil nature. They deserve infinite torture in the afterlife merely for the fact of being born. Welcome to contemporary Christianity 101. The loving religion of Joe-pew Warmer Christian.

Am I mad at religion? Is this the religion is bad card? Not all at!But the Christianity that most Christians today subscribe to is penal substitution and it is one of the most repugnant, disgusting and misanthropic systems on the market today. In that light I find it very strange for a Christian such as yourself to accuse another of "misanthropy" when most of Christianity is a virtual prototype for debasement.


Perhaps? Do you really mean "perhaps" or are you just being nice to your conservative mates? Be honest. Yes or no?

See my biblical errancy flash presentation and then comment:

http://www.after-hourz.net/biblicalerrancy.html

It is my belief that a text is more fluid and open to change shortly after its compsotion than later on after its been canonized. Do you dispute this? So what early fragments?

This makes it irrelevant that you can show that todays Bibles are liek the text in the late second and third centuries when these works were written 100 to 150 years earlier.

Yuri may then have the same problem. My readings tell me that even second century citations are from "mixed texts" already. This creates lots of problems. Do you dispute this? The fact of "mixed texts" or my conclusion of it creating problems?

Well then like I said, it would be easy for someone to blast an amatuer like myself who can't even read greek. Go ahead. Show me the evidence that the texts are stable or "like the autographs." I am still waiting.

Prove to me that the texts are stable. You can't though. All you have is presumption and presumption is a waste of time. Its another name for "we have no evidence ths is true but lets see how far this hypothesis can be taken."

I am creating a new thread for you to do this:

"Textual Stability of ECW's"

Vinnie

Vinnie

For your convenience:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=64902

Vinnie