Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sotto voce · 12-11-2012, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by God's Will Hunting

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by God's Will Hunting

NKJV was written to correct errors in KJV

I'm not sure if I agree here.

The NKJV was primarily written to modernise the language of the KJV. There are some places where it understands the passage differently to the KJV but they are not very significant.

Andrew Criddle

A source for this would be helpful. Hence the thread.

Most KJV readers detest the Bible. So whose side are we on, here?

andrewcriddle · 12-11-2012, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by God's Will Hunting

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I'm not sure if I agree here.

The NKJV was primarily written to modernise the language of the KJV. There are some places where it understands the passage differently to the KJV but they are not very significant.

Andrew Criddle

A source for this would be helpful. Hence the thread.

This is a detailed article by a conservative Christian arguing that in substance the KJV and NKJV almost always agree KJV NKJV controversy

(Some posters may be uneasy about the conservative nature of this source. However, I don't think liberals would be interested enough in this issue to prepare a detailed analysis.)

Andrew Criddle

God's Will Hunting · 12-11-2012, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

If you really want to waste your time tilting at windmills, be my guest. Pal.

Yes now that I have your permission I can proceed. Now perhaps you can stfu or add to the conversation. Move along nothing to see here...

God's Will Hunting · 12-11-2012, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by God's Will Hunting

A source for this would be helpful. Hence the thread.

This is a detailed article by a conservative Christian arguing that in substance the KJV and NKJV almost always agree KJV NKJV controversy

(Some posters may be uneasy about the conservative nature of this source. However, I don't think liberals would be interested enough in this issue to prepare a detailed analysis.)

Andrew Criddle

Thanks Andrew.

Sheshbazzar · 12-11-2012, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by God's Will Hunting

I am preparing a project aimed at "low information Christians"

You should be aware that they are "low information Christians" because that is what they choose to be.

If they wanted this information they would have sought it out themselves.

Whatever you think you are going to sell them, or 'Trojan Horse' 'trick' them into 'buying, they don't want it.

And they could really care less about how 'right' you are, or even what is right. That's just not their bag.

BTDT. Just saying, You can lead a mule to water but you cannot make it drink. Prepare to be disappointed.

Cheerful Charlie · 12-11-2012, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by God's Will Hunting

I am preparing a project aimed at "low information Christians" whose goal is to educate them about bible criticism, and hopefully open a crack in their belief system. The vast majority of Christians have no idea that the gospels are not first hand accounts, that there are verses added hundreds of years later, the synoptic problem etc.
......

Any and all help is appreciated! Remember these answers need to be geared to "low information" Christians, not apologists! I know Bart Ehrman is a great source but there has been pushback against him in the media, so Christian friendly sources would be best. I will certainly use some of his stuff though.

Get Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" It pretty much is exactly what you are looking for, already written. See also the works of Robin Fox Lane.

Cheerful Charlie

Cheerful Charlie · 12-11-2012, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by God's Will Hunting

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Authorship and dating are of no consequence. The extraneous passages are pointed out in modern Bible versions, and the NT is better without them, anyway. Copyist errors are obvious, therefore inconsequential, obviously. 'Errors between different NT books' sounds like contention. The large number of different Bible versions has no relevance, unless it is to the gain of the believer.

The only thing one is likely to do with this approach is gain 'converts' by means of misleading ideas and misinformation. Unless it is to assist the Christian cause.

You apparently aren't hanging out with the same kind of Christians I do. The Bible is the infallible word of God. The authors of Mark and Luke are apostles named Mark and Luke who sat around and chatted with Jesus, then wrote their accounts down under God's supervision. So sorry pal, it does matter.

In the gospels, there is no apostle named Mark. Almost nobody can name all the apostles, in the gospels, accounts differ to who they even were.

Cheerful Charlie

Composer · 12-11-2012, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by God's Will Hunting

I am preparing a project aimed at "low information Christians" whose goal is to educate them about bible criticism, and hopefully open a crack in their belief system. The vast majority of Christians have no idea that the gospels are not first hand accounts, that there are verses added hundreds of years later, the synoptic problem etc.

So I would like to tap into the vast knowledge base here for some help. What I need are "Christian friendly", or at least "neutral" sources to back up the claims I am making on these various points. It can be a website or book citation, but should carry some weight. Wiki is great in general, but not an impressive source, for instance. I'm looking particularly for "Bible scholar" quotes ie "the vast majority of Bible scholars agree that the Gospels are not first hand accounts".

Here are some of the areas I need quotes for:

Gospel authorship: they are not first hand accounts, and authorship is unknown

(Source: http://atheisttoolbox.com/bible_facts.php?fact_id=21)

&

Eye-Witnesses Memory UNreliable!

6. Memory Changes over time and with retelling

Numerous studies have shown that memory changes over time. The most notable effects include:
Eyewitnesses incorporate information learned after the event into memory. For example, they may talk to another witness and use information from the conversation to fill in their reconstruction of the events. They may do this by combining two memories into one or by using bias or expectations of what probably was seen.
As people recall an event over and over, they drop details from earlier versions and add new details to later versions. All things being equal, accuracy declines with each new version, at least until an asymptote is reached. In some cases, however, an eyewitness accuracy is lower when questioned immediately after a traumatic event.
References

Baddeley, A. (2004). Your Memory: A User's Guide. Richmond Hill, Canada: Firefly Books.

Norretranders, T., J. (1999). The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down To Size, 186-87. New York: Penguin Books. (Source: http://www.visualexpert.com/Resource...essmemory.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by God's Will Hunting

The fact that Mark 16:9-12 does not appear in early documents and was likely added later

"The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20": (Online Bible)

outhouse · 12-11-2012, 09:49 PM

Quote:

6. Memory Changes over time and with retelling

This isnt really even a key issue.

We have fiction being added to cross cultural oral traditons, redcations.

This was all building a legend the Roman's wouldnt find offensive, these authors didnt want the same heat as Judaism.

Tenorikuma · 12-12-2012, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie

Quote:

Originally Posted by God's Will Hunting

You apparently aren't hanging out with the same kind of Christians I do. The Bible is the infallible word of God. The authors of Mark and Luke are apostles named Mark and Luke who sat around and chatted with Jesus, then wrote their accounts down under God's supervision. So sorry pal, it does matter.

In the gospels, there is no apostle named Mark. Almost nobody can name all the apostles, in the gospels, accounts differ to who they even were.

Cheerful Charlie

If you mean the "twelve" disciples, there are between 14 and 19 mentioned in the gospels, depending on how you count them. I even made a chart once.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oe2hwccrpulv8b9/Disciples.pdf

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.