Julian

[MOD]
Carin Nel's long post has been copied from here: http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/fuller-preserved.html with a few paraphrases thrown in. Please do not copy large amounts of material from websites, especially without attributing the text! Instead copy a small, pertinent amount and then provide a link to the page.

Julian
Moderator, BC&H
[/MOD]

Julian

Carin, once again you display that you have no knowledge of the things you post about. Unfortunately, you copied from someone who just as little as you do.

Explain to me how the terms 'scientific, accurate' goes hand in hand with the term 'god inspired.' You can claim divine inspiration but then you have to give up the notion that any of this is scietifically accurate, especially since we know with scientific accuracy that the documents he used were probably the worst he could have picked, that they late and not early, that he was in so much of a hurry that he didn't have a complete Greek copy of Revelation and had to translate part of it from the Latin, etc, etc... Funny how your source article doesn't mention any of this...

Just give it up. You cutting-and-pasting of the utterances of ignorant fundamentalists will convince no one here. Ever. How about speaking for yourself? Demonstrate your knowledge of these matters?

Julian

Bede

This is a famous story repeated by reliable scholars. However, it appears to have a very dodgy providence and dates from a good couple of centuries after Erasmus died. Stephen Carlson found this article that gives the dirty:

https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/ret...99/279_050.pdf

Best wishes

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Roller

Doh, I didn't even noticed the copy/paste job. I just took a random sentece from Carin's post and plugged it in Google. Same source turned out as the one Julian posted. We have to give her credit for at least bolding certain parts that can't be found in the original source

Wads4

And why not?--Why do you assume it is the work of a God, just because the Jews expressed themselves that way in their writings, and that tradition was perpetuated?

One wonders how many other people made how many more "small changes" since the Bible was completed. How much of the meaning has changed I wonder?

Roller

Thank you for that link Bede.

However, it seems that whats the link is saying is not much different from what I said.

For example, I said (paraphrasing scholars to my best ability): "However, he agreed to include this passage if he could be presented with a greek manuscript containing it."

What Erasmus actually said is this: "What sort of indolence is that, if I did not consult the manuscnpts which I could not manage to have At least, I collccted äs many äs I could Let Lee produce a Greek manuscnpt in which is written the words lacking in my edition, and let him prove that I had access to this manuscnpt, and then let him accuse me of indolence."

Apparently, Erasums said this in his defense of deliberate omission. He was not really asking for a manuscript. Still, someone could have read the bolded part and draw the same conclusion other scholars did - give me a mss and I'll include it.

Apparently, Erasmus got his Johannine Comma from Codex Britannicus written to order around 1520 (from what I can gather). Erasmus suspected that this Greek mss was written using Vulgate as a "template." He said: "Although
I buspect this manuscript, too, to have been revised after the manuscripts of
the Latin world." This would then be a Greek mss based on Latin mss? It doesn't seem, however, that Erasmus suspected Codex Britannicus was written with the intention of "pushing him in the corner" in order to include comma in his translation. I never said he was aware of this.

Still, he wrote the letter with the above bolded quotation in 1520, and then, all of a sudden, a Greek mss appeared in 1520 with Johannine Comma in it. He wrote the letter to England, and the mss came from England. Conspiracy theory? Maybe

It seems that the only difference is his "challenge." They way I said it sounds as a "challenge" but it was actually his defense.

The part where I said: "'No problem,' said his peers. They sat down and wrote manuscript in greek with this passage in it." is more my, rather free, intrepretation of what happened. I sincerely doubt there is a source representing things in this exact way.

I will go to my source later today to see if its aware of this.

Bede

I agree that the article only gives us some nuance. But the frisson of the traditional story is the idea that Erasmus was such a good man that he kept his promise even when it was obvious that he had been conned. This gives it a bit of a Washington and the Cherry Tree character in that it promotes the goodness of the protaganist. (OK, so the cherry tree is utter fiction, but you get my point).

So I think the nuance is important. If Erasmus didn't add the comma to his third edition because he'd promised he would if someone presented a single manuscript, the story loses its edge.

Don't worry, I think you related what your source said accurately and I think you had no good reason to think your source misinformed.

B



Bes

Sven

You know what's funny? After being shown to know not a shred about evolution and geology in a thread in EoG, Carin came back with this [emphasis mine]:

:rolling:

Julian

I am generally very wary of people who use the word 'truth,' especially when they capitalize it (more so when they capitalize all of it). Truth is a philosophical concept which has no real meaning since it near impossible to define it in a manner acceptable to all, or even most. It is facts that we are interested in, whereas people who peddle the truth are generally pushing their own ideology around. It can be easily shown that people who claim to have the truth usually disagree with everybody else who also deal in truth. I suggest they go and slug it out between themselves and leave us alone.

Also, why should it be necessary to search the scriptures for truth? Shouldn't divine truth from the pen of god be fairly obvious? It would seem to me that subjective truth could hardly come from god unless one is a buddhist, of course.

Likewise, 'Christian Life' must also be a fantasy since every christian has a different life and a different understanding of such a life, again relegating it to the realm of subjectivity.

All such concepts are pointless and it seems remarkable that many christians are unable to understand such basic reasoning and instead fall back on the old No True Scotsman fallacy. All we can reasonably discuss here are the facts, something which precious few christians know much about. Luckily, some do and we have a few here, you know who you are.

Julian

Sven

Similarly, I'm very wary of people who claim to "know" things, but can not provide any evidence in favor of it (personal relationship with God, anyone?).