Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Avery · 05-31-2005, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DramaQ

:rolling: I need to go reset my irony meter. You criticize Joe W for using one version of the bible because it supports his position, and at the same time happily stay loyal to the version that works best for YOUR position.

That doesn't seem too complicated. See last post where I explain WHY I reject the junque Bible versions. It doesn't seem too complicated that those who truly believe the Bible, and can explain why, defend the Scriptures that really work.

If you want to dialog with the crew that doesn't really believe in a tangible Bible, (only the "original autographs" that are never defined or demonstrated and can malleably have copyist errors and whatevers and morph as the argument goes on) go right ahead. However, we all know that that is in a sense a joke debate. You like that debate because you've won even before you've begun !.

However, if you want to truly dialog with someone who *believes* in the Bible, a real tangible book from God that you can hold in your hand, you should at least give them the benefit of the doubt in explaining what IS the Bible that they believe, and not tell them to "believe" in the RCC Vulgate, or the Alexandrian text, or the Greek OT, or the Old Syriac NT, and you will dialog with them on what they don't believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DramaQ

Yes yes… yours is “true�? and his is not. Therefore you are right and he is wrong.

You miss the point. There is NO "right" alexandrian bible. I have never seen ANYBODY defend ANY such Bible as inerrant. The whole thing is a chimera, and an intellectual morass. So of course the enemies of the Scripture like to play on that field.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DramaQ

And it makes perfect sense to you that errors were somehow ADDED to the “perfect�? TR text rather than that the later text cleaned up the earlier mistakes. Yikes.

Basically all the TR readings get support from BEFORE the alexandrian text, usually in the early church writers. See the ending of Mark thread, or, better yet, study 1 Timothy 3:16. The alex texts are junque top to bottom, anyway. Do you know about "you fool and knave" in Vaticanus ? Do you know how many scribes were correcting each others errors in Sinaticus. These are trash manuscripts, top to bottom, and that is why they are full of errors. Many were just clumsiness and stupidity, apparently some were bad doctrine. That is also why so many of their readings are virtually orphan readings, with minimal support ANY where else, very often not even with each other ie. "aleph and b"

Quote:

Originally Posted by DramaQ

I missed the part in that thread where it was concluded “the travel route makes sense�?.

At the time I wrote that I didn't realize it was a two-page thread, on the first page basically only Gerash was considered a real claim of error, Peter had put in a road map, too. Later they went back to very weakly trying to claim an error. Honestly, that has been beaten hard on the thread, and I have a hard time even figuring out what error is still being claimed, the order of Bethany and Bepthage ?? It just seems so lame.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DramaQ

That is just what I pointed out before. As long as one retains the “right�? to wave a magic wand and recite the incantation “Goddit�?, all discussion is moot.

This misses the point. Mostly the supernatural claims in the Bible are very clear. Jesus either walked on water, or he didn't. Either He was resurrected, and the grave was empty, or not. So if you can't relate to a believer accepting the Bible, then, ok, all discussion is moot.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Steven Avery · 05-31-2005, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

THE Greek text. ANY Greek text. That's the point. Erasmus didn't have a complete Greek text and whatever he lacked, he filled in by translating back from the Vulgate.

What do YOU claim is in "whatever he lacked". Let's put aside the last six verses of Revelation for now, where the claim is quite disputed. Anything else ? Can you name ONE verse ?

Shalom,
Praxeas

Rick Sumner · 05-31-2005, 01:12 PM

Some additional sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Oxford Dictionary of tthe Bible, W. R. F. Browning (ed)

Gadara A city of the Decapolis, 9.6 km. (6 miles) SE of the Sea of Galilee, where Jesus healed two demoniacs in Matt. (8.28), and one demoniac in Mark (5.2). (The best Greek MSS of the corresponding passage in Mark (5.1) gives the place as Gerasa, which is 48 km. (30 miles) from the lake, and therefore geographically less plausible.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Easton's Bible Dictionary

Gadara the capital of the Roman province of Peraea. It stood on the summit of a mountain about 6 miles south-east of the Sea of Galilee. Mark Mr 5:1 and Luke Lu 8:26-39 describe the miracle of the healing of the demoniac (Matthew Mt 8:28-34 says two demoniacs) as having been wrought "in the country of the Gadarenes," thus describing the scene generally. The miracle could not have been wrought at Gadara itself, for between the lake and this town there is the deep, almost impassable ravine of the Hieromax (Jarmuk). It is identified with the modern village of Um-Keis, which is surrounded by very extensive ruins, all bearing testimony to the splendour of ancient Gadara. "The most interesting remains of Gadara are its tombs, which dot the cliffs for a considerable distance round the city, chiefly on the north-east declivity; but many beautifully sculptured sarcophagi are scattered over the surrounding heights. They are excavated in the limestone rock, and consist of chambers of various dimensions, some more than 20 feet square, with recesses in the sides for bodies...The present inhabitants of Um-Keis are all troglodytes, 'dwelling in tombs,' like the poor maniacs of old, and occasionally they are almost as dangerous to unprotected travellers."

The following text-critical volumes support the reading of "Gerasenes" over "Gadarenes," Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Wescortt & Hort, Nestle-Aland.

For what it's worth (which isn't a great deal), Gadarenes is preferred by Darby, the KJV, The Revised Webster's and YLT. Gerasenes is preferred by the RSV, NRSV, NIV and the NAB.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Steven Avery · 05-31-2005, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Your quotations are incorrect. Luke says "Gerasenes" and so does Mark. The TR is just flat wrong on this.

LOL - because a couple of Egyptian manuscripts have a reading you will override hundreds of the historic Byzantine mansucript, and any other evidences.

And that way you can claim an error in the NT text:-) GIGO.

And you don't even see the strange paradigm involved .. amazing.

Before, I was wondering if ANYONE on this forum could even remotely understand the BASICS of the relationship between the Historic Text, the junque alexandrian text, and Inerrancy.
Apprarently not.
Ergo.. you are making any inerrancy/errancy dialog into a skepticism joke.

WE INSIST THAT YOU USE THE CORRUPT, GARBAGE TEXT, BASED PRIMARILY ON A COUPLE OF PUTRID MANUSCRIPTS, COPIED BY INCOMPETENT SCRIBES CORRECTING EACH OTHERS MISTEAKS, AND THEN, FROM THAT BASE WE WILL TRIUMPHANTLY PROVE THE ERRERS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT !!!!

:-) Thanks for a little humor today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Amalaq covered the Josephus question.

Incorrectly, because the most imporant Josephus paragraph proving the NT correct was not mentioned, touched, or considered, and I pulled it out on the 2:43PM post. Awaiting a response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Some of the more faulty passages in the TR (which is all based on 10th century manuscripts or later...mostly later) include the last six verses of revelation (all imported from the Vulgate), Acts 9:6 (ditto from the Vulgate) and the fraudulent insertion of the Trinity into 1 John 5:7-8..

Same ol propaganda :-) Those verses all have a variety of support other than the Vulgate, including early church writers. Actually I believe that the Trinitarians dropped 1 John from the Greek line because of "and these three are one".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It is pretty universally acknowledged in NT scholarship that the TR is extremely problematic and inaccurate and the KJV even more so. Anyone who claims to be educated in these matters should know that.

LOL .. oh I know very well on how they brainwash you, and the phoney paradigms of textcrit that would place two corrupt manuscripts over hundreds of historical accurate manuscripts.

Anyway, Diogenes, thanks for the dialog.

Maybe someday you can start by simply reading a little bit by Maurice Robinson and the basic reasons why the Byzantine Text, using an intelligent textual criticism, is superior to the Alexandrian manuscripts, even if you cut off all manuscripts after about 1100 A.D.

However, for now, I will just wait and see if there are any skeptics who understand the basics of the New Testament manuscripts and Inerrancy claims. If not, then I will bow out, considering the basic point as being proven, that skeptics stack the textual deck with false unbelieving theories in order to claim NT errancy.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

andrewcriddle · 05-31-2005, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

LOL - because a couple of Egyptian manuscripts have a reading you will override hundreds of the historic Byzantine mansucript, and any other evidences.

In Both Mark 5 and Luke 8 the Alexandrian reading Gerasenes is supported by Codex Bezae (D) the Vulgate and the Old Latin. It is not a narrowly Egyptian reading.

Andrew Criddle

Peter Kirby · 05-31-2005, 02:50 PM

Well, I get your point. It is that the NT is perfectly inerrant, that the KJV is the NT text, and that using a textual basis that is other than the KJV for inerrancy discussion (with you) is to criticize texts that both parties already agree to be imperfect. That's the gist of it, no?

Also, that the W-H paradigm is based on numerically inferior, contradictory Egyptian manuscripts, that the "more difficult reading" principle is overused (do you ever use it though?), and that there are some specific points, such as these geography boners, on which the TR is superior. Plus, that one must defend an actual text, the actual text, and not a hypothetical or "version of the month," to be a believer in the true NT text.

Did I miss anything?

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby · 05-31-2005, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

P.S. Can someone direct me to a good website about the TR versus the Alexandrian texts versus Vaticanus and so on? I know very little about this issue.

I've always liked Interpreting Ancient Manuscripts Web. Plus the Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism. For an alternative view, see the site of Yuri Kuchinsky.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Diogenes the Cynic · 06-01-2005, 07:21 AM

Praxeus, The Gadara "region" argument is not only specious but irrelevant since Mark and Luke both say Gerasa. There isn't any question about that. You're using the wrong text. The oldest and best manuscripts say Gerasa. It appears you have staked out this ludicrous TR, "KJV only" hill as the (rather desperate) basis for your argument and are committed to sticking your fingers in your ears when others try to explain to you why nobody in NT scholarship takes that position seriously. Unless you are willing to defend your unorthodox and dubious position on the Textus Receptus in a separate thread there's not much point in continuing in this vein which is a sidetrack from the OP topic anyway.

As for "miracles" discussion -- miracles are impossible by definition. A miracle is something which violates the laws of physics. The rational default assumption is that the laws of physics cannot be violated and that assumption remains in place until proven otherwise. Natural explanations must always be preferred to magical explanations or else no inferential methodology would ever be possible. For any phenomenon, there are always an infinite number of hypothetical magical explanations - all with the exact same evidence as the Biblical "miracles" you prefer - and no reason to prefer any one of those magical explantions over any other one, and certainly even less reason to prefer a magical explanation over a natural one.

If the police are investigating a murder, should they consider supernatural explanations for the forensic evidence? If they discover fingerprints, should they assume a person left them there or should they assume they were put there by magic or a miracle? Should they be required to investigate the possibility that vampires or werewolves committed the crime or is it best to assume that supernatural beings were not involved?

It's the same with history. History is really just detective work. Since there has never been a single verifiable case of the laws of physics ever being violated in the entire history of the universe - since such violations are, in fact, prima facie *impossibilities* - then empirical research requires us to assume that magic didn't happen until something proves it did. So far, not a single incident of magic has ever been proven.

Steven Avery · 06-01-2005, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Praxeus, The Gadara "region" argument is not only specious but irrelevant since Mark and Luke both say Gerasa. There isn't any question about that. You're using the wrong text.

Peter understands the basics of my view. See above. You don't. I am looking for productive discussions on the forum, so for now that is sufficiente.

And I notice you didn't offer anything substantive on the Gadara topic other than defacto saying
"YOU SHOULD USE THE CORRUPT TEXT, THEN WE CAN SHOW THE ERRORS"

The 'region", or the NT usage of 'country' argument is actually demonstrated and defacto agreed above in the thread, it is by no means 'specious', the NT does not mention the Roman political province, and this has now gotten multiple confirmations, such as the Josephus reference and the dicussions of the Decapolis cities.

The discussion then switched to the location of the Gadara Decapolis 'polis city-state' region, where Amaleq made some interesting points, and whether the location of the text can be found, and be consistent.

As far as I can tell, the steep hills coming down from Poriya fits perfectly to the Bible and to Josephus and the other historical sources, and this wraps up the issue, for those of us who accept the historical (Byzantine, or Majority, or Textus Receptus, or King James Bible) text :-) It was a very satisfactory discussion.

Oh, Peter, these verses would have a good example of a true harder reading, as you asked. Gergensenes in Matthew. Apparently the Peshitta simply "smoothed" it to match up the three stories (even though that makes the geography difficult, and the issue of one person or two stands out as well, it could obviously seem to make it easier). The Peshitta smoothing is easy to see happenning by a Greek-->Aramaic translator/copyist. On the other hand, other than an original reading, the Gergensenes usage in Matthew has no good theory of creation or transmission.

Of course on the very same verses, we could have the false claim that the Alexandrian and Vulgate errors are the original 'harder reading'.. principally because they are big geographical errors, vis a vis Gerash :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Unless you are willing to defend your unorthodox and dubious position on the Textus Receptus in a separate thread there's not much point in continuing in this vein which is a sidetrack from the OP topic anyway.

:-) I do that all the time on WhichVersion, BibleVersionDebate and other forums, here with your shrill propagandizing for the alexandrian text, and disinterest by many, I really don't see any point on a thread. As I said, Peter at least "gets it" on the paradigm issues, you do not. If you can't even grasp the basic concepts, there is no point in mucking around in a lot of detail, quite repetitively, and offerring completely different understandings from our differing paradigmic base.

And as I pointed out, I'm not debating issues like "miracles", "credible witnesses" and stuff like that on the forum. Not issues where we will simply end with paradigmic gridlock. I may occasionally ask a little question, but no tiring back-and-forths. You simply go ahead from your structures and concepts.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Yuri Kuchinsky · 06-01-2005, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

You're using the wrong text. The oldest and best manuscripts say Gerasa. It appears you have staked out this ludicrous TR, "KJV only" hill as the (rather desperate) basis for your argument and are committed to sticking your fingers in your ears when others try to explain to you why nobody in NT scholarship takes that position seriously.

He's not using the wrong text. There are many competent textual critics who defend the Byzantine text (represented by KJV), over the modern Hortian corruptions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Unless you are willing to defend your unorthodox and dubious position on the Textus Receptus in a separate thread there's not much point in continuing in this vein which is a sidetrack from the OP topic anyway.

KJV is superior to any modern version based on Westcott & Hort.

Yuri.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-31-2005, 02:50 PM	#16
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Well, I get your point. It is that the NT is perfectly inerrant, that the KJV is the NT text, and that using a textual basis that is other than the KJV for inerrancy discussion (with you) is to criticize texts that both parties already agree to be imperfect. That's the gist of it, no? Also, that the W-H paradigm is based on numerically inferior, contradictory Egyptian manuscripts, that the "more difficult reading" principle is overused (do you ever use it though?), and that there are some specific points, such as these geography boners, on which the TR is superior. Plus, that one must defend an actual text, the actual text, and not a hypothetical or "version of the month," to be a believer in the true NT text. Did I miss anything? best wishes, Peter Kirby

06-01-2005, 07:21 AM	#18
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Praxeus, The Gadara "region" argument is not only specious but irrelevant since Mark and Luke both say Gerasa. There isn't any question about that. You're using the wrong text. The oldest and best manuscripts say Gerasa. It appears you have staked out this ludicrous TR, "KJV only" hill as the (rather desperate) basis for your argument and are committed to sticking your fingers in your ears when others try to explain to you why nobody in NT scholarship takes that position seriously. Unless you are willing to defend your unorthodox and dubious position on the Textus Receptus in a separate thread there's not much point in continuing in this vein which is a sidetrack from the OP topic anyway. As for "miracles" discussion -- miracles are impossible by definition. A miracle is something which violates the laws of physics. The rational default assumption is that the laws of physics cannot be violated and that assumption remains in place until proven otherwise. Natural explanations must always be preferred to magical explanations or else no inferential methodology would ever be possible. For any phenomenon, there are always an infinite number of hypothetical magical explanations - all with the exact same evidence as the Biblical "miracles" you prefer - and no reason to prefer any one of those magical explantions over any other one, and certainly even less reason to prefer a magical explanation over a natural one. If the police are investigating a murder, should they consider supernatural explanations for the forensic evidence? If they discover fingerprints, should they assume a person left them there or should they assume they were put there by magic or a miracle? Should they be required to investigate the possibility that vampires or werewolves committed the crime or is it best to assume that supernatural beings were not involved? It's the same with history. History is really just detective work. Since there has never been a single verifiable case of the laws of physics ever being violated in the entire history of the universe - since such violations are, in fact, prima facie impossibilities - then empirical research requires us to assume that magic didn't happen until something proves it did. So far, not a single incident of magic has ever been proven.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.