Clivedurdle

May I post that in EC?:devil1:

notapadawan

No. I was misinformed. He never "recanted" it, but was rather revising it to reflect new data. Still doesn't change my basic premise that Mark didn't have to change his Gospel to fit "new" data.

Clivedurdle

Too late she cried and waved her wooden leg!

(And I never suggested "Mark" might have edited him/herself.)

notapadawan

You are right. You never suggested Mark edited himself, then why suggest the Origin of Species needed to be revised?

Clivedurdle

As an example that everybody always revises stuff? So that the whole idea of an inerrant word of god is a fiction? To attempt to put these historically very important documents in a context that makes sense?

Clivedurdle

Je ne compris pas! I got it from his book "Julian"!

notapadawan

If something is written right the first time, and uses correct data, a revision is not necessary. Wouldn't you agree to that?

notapadawan

Thanks. I haven't read it. Does he footnote this portion or is he basing it upon a universal assumption?

Clivedurdle

Not about two thousand year old stuff! In any case, everything gets revised in some way!

Clivedurdle

Julian is a novel - he does state it is thoroughly researched using existing material, but no footnotes. So neither of the above.