Riverwind

I take issue with a lot of what Nazaroo has to say (and the way he says it), but I still wish he would explain in more depth an issue he brought up here and on his website as well.

Nazaroo says that there are critical marks in p66, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus that indicate the knowledge of those scribes that there was a John 8:1-11. I don't want to argue whether it was really there or not. I want to address these critical marks again.

I will give him the "umlauts" in Vaticanus as possible text critical marks, but I disagree that the marks in p66 and Sinaiticus are text critical marks that denote that John 8:1-11 was known. The reason I disagree is that, in spite of the fact that Nazaroo's image did not show any of the other marks, the marks that he mentions are found all throughout the text of both p66 and Sinaiticus, not just in areas that would mark textual variations.

So, I guess my question to Nazaroo would be, "Can you present one of the other marks and explain how it is a textual variation, or if it is not a textual varation what it is and how one can tell the difference (ie. when the marks do or do not represent a text critical note)?" I assume that you want to be honest in your presentation and not misrepresent material simply to bolster your points, so I would request that you explain these marks in general and perhaps quote a scholar who happens to agree with your point of view. Thanks.

Nazaroo

You fellows are a laugh and a half. Let's see why:


A person who has numerous university degrees and engages in a massive media campaign is not someone who innocently makes an incorrect and therefore false, or exaggerated statement. The only thing exaggerated about Ehrman's activity is his incredible media whoring.

...but apparently not libelous enough to cause anyone to think there's a hope in hell of winning a case of libel against me, or in a way that would generate any interest in a question of libel. (Nevermind the fact there is no money to be won. I don't have any, and I'm not generating any money writing a critique of Ehrman's b.s. So no lawyer would go within a million miles of a lawsuit that's unwinnable and involves no money.)


I think you know damn well that Ehrman has already seen it and read it over quite a bit. Ehrman's people already put enough pressure on one server/provider to have them remove the article from one of our sites, through some scare tactics.

That's why we have created multiple offshore links and sites to continue providing the article to the public.


But while we are here, talking about 'courage', I have to ask once again, although you have never answered or explained yourself yet.

<edit for inflammatory language and content>

Amaleq is the only one not talking shit here, even though he is half-joking.

But if I was Ehrman and hadn't read my paper, I'd be upset that some ahole was giving out my emails to nuts on the internet.

So yeah, Gibson should be shortsheeted for a stunt like this.


Who needs an excuse? <edit for inflammatory language and content>

I see you've avoided completely my reasonable challenge for you to produce even ONE page of Vaticanus that has a whole column blank, while you claimed you found dozens. Of course you're lying, because there are only two blank columns in Vaticanus.

As a matter of fact, if you had bothered to read what everybody knows, the quire in Codex Sinaiticus WAS replaced. This has been known for a hundred years.

There is no need to invent 4th century 'white-out'. The scribe obviously did exactly what he was told to do: leave out the verses (which were known and quoted for two centuries previous), and leave a space so that if the client wanted to put them in, they could do so later.


Coarse language and truth are independant variables.

A famous mathematician once said, "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

In a similar vein I would say, "there are liars, fucking liars, and Bart Ehrman."


The Bible is full of coarse language and strong stories of crudity and violence, as anyone who is familiar with Hebrew can attest.

The issue of obscenity is entirely separate from the issue of Ehrman's fraud.

But if you are going to discuss obscenity, then please first define it in way that is in agreement with your opponent's definition of it. If we don't even agree on what obscenity is, we can't have a rational discussion of it.

In my definition, obscenity is when US troops bomb the shit out of women and children, and depleted uranium is dumped all over entire countries.

I'd be delighted to discuss the issue of obsenity with you in another thread.


I would love to discuss this in detail. Please repost your question in my thread on John 8:1-11 where it belongs.

Steven Avery

Really I don't see anything to discuss. First I wrote to you about it privately. Now I mention it on the thread. You undermine your own case.

Shalom,
Steven

Riverwind

No offense, Nazaroo, but when I originally brought the topic up on the thread that you mention, you told me it was off-topic and I'd have to bring it up elsewhere.

I would prefer that you just answer the question here instead of redirecting me again. Regardless of your interest in discussing the issue, this makes it seem like a reluctance to address the issue.

Threads go slightly off-topic at times...unavoidable with so many possible side-tangents. Actually, that seems to be what keeps some threads alive over time. So, please go ahead and address the issue here since it has been brought up. If not, I wouldn't mind creating a thread specifically for the issue if you will respond in it.

Nazaroo

Apparently there is very much to discuss, since we clearly don't agree on what obscenity even is.

Nor do I see how any kind of language undermines historical facts.

Did the fact that Ehrman announced he had no balls, on the Colbert Report in front of a million viewers affect his own case adversely?

It got a laugh, but did it help or hinder his case about the bible in any way?

If you can't answer these questions, then what are you doing?

You say you don't see anything to discuss, but you chose the topic.

jgibson000

I know no such thing. How and why would I?

May we have some evidence for this claim, please.

I spoke of "having the courage of one's convictions", not, as you now misquote me, simply of "courage". Surely even you know what "courage of one's convictions means".

JG

Nazaroo

As I said to the other poster:
I'd be delighted to discuss this here or anywhere, but wouldn't that be hijacking someone else's thread?

To which I'll add some timely advice:
Don't be a dork.

jgibson000

Never stopped you before.

So if I wrote to Bart, he'd say that you sent him your "Bart Ehrman is a "f***ing liar" piece?

JG

Toto

I have a better idea. Invite Bart Ehrman to join this board, and then the moderators can remove all of the vile insults directed at him, as well as the accusations of lying. It would tidy things up quite a bit.

jgibson000

Why should it take Bart joining this board to get the moderators to do what should be done regardless?

Jeffrey Gibson