Steven Avery

Naah. You can Spin your Skeptic Apologetics and I won't mind one bit. I simply don't see you as interested in real dialog and my time posting is always measured. Right now the emphasis is the Bible text and not parsing subtle internecine differences between the Skeptic Philosophy Group and the Infidel Faith Batallion.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Naaah.

I was only pointing out that the textual issues, and the bulk of items raised here, are in the NT. Look at 'specialists' like JW who has a handoff policy towards the Tanach while he goes though the most convoluted conniptions on the NT.

Anyway, to demonstrate, remember when Amaleq was trying hard to really claim that the Masoretic Text - King James Bible was corrupt in 1 Samuel. I was very happy to dispute that claim as well and defend the historic Bible and point out the flaws in his attempts. Equal opportunity.

The difference is that few have made a serious attempt to replace the historic Received Masoretic Text with a hodge-podge of junque manuscripts as occurs in the NT. To fabricate errors by taking verses from the Samaritan Penteteuch or the Greek OT or diverse DSS or Latin Vulgate or Targumim or Peshtta variances or whatever and calling them the Bible. That does not really happen. (The Latin and Peshitta are basically MT anyway).

With the NT those junque attempts represent a good part of the problem ..
The rest of the 'problem' is our need for a clear head and a seeking heart.

Look now here .. see JW going haywire trying desparately to convince folks that the ending of Mark is not the original Bible, that it is a 'forgery'. Amazing. Funny really. (Especially when you remeber that half his audience already considers the whole NT as some type of forgery anyway).

Even though the ending of Mark is very well attested to in the early writings and is the reading in about 99% of manuscripts. And JW spends hours trying to be in some sort of Kiddy Creative Writing class to try to convince... somebody.. of .. about the stupidest theory going.

The whole endeavor is a joke, in a very real sense, at least to those of us who are believers, and who have the grace of God's word, pure and inerrant and perfect, in our hands. (And it ain't the NIV or the Living Bible or the Message or an RSVP).

And I am happy to hold my received text King James Bible in my hand and to my heart, NT and Tanach, and point out how dumb so many of these attacks are.

Especially the joke of JW and others using the Duckshoot Text to try to claim errors (while folks aggresively tell me that I am supposed to embrace the text that is full of dung-readings and has never made any sense historically or textually). They act as if I am supposed to take to heart the bumblings of modern textcrit that can't even recognize the ending of Mark and the Pericope Adultera as simply the Bible, the word of God. What nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless But the NT still has its own problems... in every version that exists, apparently.

Jack, I was trying to think the other day what are the major supposed problems Stuff like spoken by Jeremiah, the last days of Judas, Till or Chris Petersen struggling to straight-jacket the crucifixion accounts, supposedly the census, maybe whither Jericho, or when was the Nazareth post-resurrection appearance. Seems like light stuff.

Now I grant that for those who have to deal with the modern versions, there are some real doozy-paloozas. Apologetics does not really hold, which is why folks like our friend JPH becomes such a consumate hand-waver. (To be fair, I like some, a portion, of his writings). And why they all changed the definition of inerrancy to something like jello hanging on a tree.

Psalm 19:7
The law of the LORD is perfect,
converting the soul:
the testimony of the LORD is sure,
making wise the simple.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Heidi,

Lets put aside your hearsay claim. Since if that were true, then the Bible is full of lies and the jig is up, the spiritual parties over. Time to get drunk, rob a bank if we can avoid getting caught, give up hope/faith for the peace that passes all understanding.

So bear with me looking at what you said sans the hearsay shtick.

I am not sure of the implications you want from "written and translated and re-translated". Written, yes generally books are written. Translated ? Sure, for most everybody. Re-translated ? Well not here, I have a pure Bible. Ask me in 500 years if we have all switched to esparanto and maybe I'll need a re-translation.

That all aside.. can it all be proven? Probably not, since proof standards are themself subjective. Can an objective spiritual truth be subjectively proven when each mind creates their own individualistic standard of proof? Is it possible ? I trow not.

And there is a basic issue over whether spiritual reality and that subjective proof standard can have a day of reconciliation. Or whether one subsumes the other. The spiritual reality is all interconnected with man's hardness and transgression, separation from the creator and our need for a way back to the garden if you will. It is at core a battle of heart and soul, not intellect, knowledge, mind. Our wisdom is meant to be only a tool of service and not a scalpel of rebellion.

Look, Heidi, in their minds folks actually think they have proven that a protozoa or whatever morphs to a human being .. just give then some millions of years. Why, that is proven .

Romans 8:5-7
For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh;
but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
For to be carnally minded is death;
but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God:
for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Dennis the little, Dennis the humble (per the url) .. nice name.
I just wonder if he had an evil twin
.. Dennis the Menace.



(yes, I had a long day)

Steven Avery

In modern textcrit and Chicago-style inerrancy ?
Whatever you want to make 'em.
Jello nailed to a tree.

Touche and Spot-on !

spin

"Spin"!! Oh how drole! praxeus can even attempt to be witty! He is such a versatile son. I wonder how long it took to come up with that novel pun.

It's a wonder with such abysmal obfuscation on his part that he even bothered to string this stuff together. Instead of dealing with issues, he runs to paltry lip.

Once again, praxeus, you are guilty of attempting to shoot the messenger while ignoring the message.

If you don't like the practice of science and the necessity of skepticism in analysis, that is your privilege. You can continue the head in the sand routine of yours as long as you like:

As long as you don't have to explain yourself.

Real dialog I gather is your conclusion driven obfuscations.

(Do you have a spellchecker? Well, use it.)

As you have no ability to appreciate the necessity of skepticism in analysis I can understand the persistence in confusing skepticism with infidelism, but your fiddlings with the bible text will come to nothing constructive because you have no independence from your foregone conclusions.

You allude to some complaint about the criticism of your inherent predisposition in your analyses but fail to substantiate that complaint with considered argument. Until that substantiation arrives, all anyone can see is you apparently working yourself up in a handy dose of self-stimulation.


spin

Steven Avery

Thanks for the confirmation that bypassing your stuff is wisdom.

Shalom,
Steven

Iasion

Greetings,

Cyprian

The quote goes like this :
The Lord says, "I and the Father are One," and again, of
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written:
"And the three are One."

Yes, he does quote the phrase "And the three are One."
(some times written "the three are in agreement".)

But NO,
this is NOT the Comma Johanneum at all. The passage "And the three are One" IS found in the all copies, with or without the Comma. That is not the subject under discussion.

But,
Cyprian does NOT quote the phrase known as the Comma Johanneum:
"in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth"

Cyprian explicitly expresses the Trinity doctrine, but he does NOT quote the actual Comma as part of the scripture. This is clear and present evidence that his copy did NOT include the Comma at all.

Cyprian is NOT evidence for the Comma.


Tertullian
Adversus Praxean (25:1)

Yes, he does quote the phrase "And the three are One" found in all MSS.
No, he does not quote the Comma.

Tertullian is NOT evidence for the Comma.


The rest of your citations are all 4th century and later.

So,
lets see the evidence by century :

(1st : none)

2nd C.:
* several fathers WITHOUT the Comma
(nothing with the Comma in this century)

3rd C.:
* several fathers WITHOUT the Comma
* several MSS WITHOUT the Comma
* some other versions WITHOUT the Comma
(nothing with the Comma in this century)

4th C.:
* some fathers WITH the Comma
* other versions WITHOUT the Comma
* many MSS WITHOUT the Comma
* the acknowledged FIRST quote of the Comma

5th C. on
* All Greek MSS WITHOUT the Comma (until Erasmus)
* some latin MSS WITH the Comma
* some latin fathers WITH the Comma

The evidence is crystal clear:

The Comma Johanneum was unknown as part of 1 John until the 4th century.


Iasion

spin

Predisposition.

Jack the Bodiless

Praxeus, I appreciate that this thread is currently dealing primarily with the NT, but the thread title is "Biblical authenticity" and the OP discusses an article which makes the claim that Jesus fulfilled "prophecies" in the OT.
Nor is it the KJV, or the Masoretic Text, or any other text that you actually have in your hands. :huh:
...While carefully avoiding other errors which prove that the texts you favor are in fact worthless. Why defend the indefensible? Yes, certain specific claims of error may be due to clearly-identifiable misconceptions and translation issues (and even a sceptic can point those out), but approaching the whole exercise from a faith-based inerrany perspective is futile.
Luke's Jesus was born a decade after Matthew's Jesus: this is "light stuff", whereas a disputed textual variation involving a Greek word is "heavy stuff"? Matthew's attempt to fabricate blatantly nonexistent "prophecies" is of no consequence? John seems to think that Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem, but that doesn't matter? Nazareth was built on a "high hill" that does not actually exist? Jesus was fasting in the wilderness, but partying in Cana could be a part of that? The Sun went out for a while and zombies wandered the streets of Jerusalem, but only one person noticed? The crucifixion accounts are apparently incompatible, but the sceptics are the ones described as "struggling"?

And you still maintain that "real doozy-paloozas" such as these don't exist in the Alexandrian texts?