Thanks, George. I didn't think to check Amazon for reviews. I'll read them.
I'm also wary of people who NOW have the truth that's been hidden and mis-understood for years. ;) Did reading the reviews, if you did, change your opinion?
Still pretty skeptical though. I mean, it's not like nobody's ever studied The Bible before.
And it's not like all sorts of new material has just been found. Near as I know, at least for the New Testament, it's the same 'ol stuff that theologians have been moldering around with for years. So how's come this guy has found out all this hitherto unknown wisdom of the ages?
I read Lost Christianities by this guy this past year, and it wasn't too bad. He makes a good case for the bible that we have today being the end product of factional infighting among the differing versions of Christianity.
George, I agree with the skepticism, I really do! I also tug with the idea that so much was repressed and hidden by organized religion and politics that some things are now coming to light because of people like this dude and because of the information age where we have access to so much more information than we have ever had before. It's also easier to find and learn of things that we might otherwise have never found in a small town library or church.
TLB, you have really studied and read a lot, haven't you??? My little brother gave me a book on Mary Magdalene this year for Christmas and I'm looking forward to reading it. I feel like a kid in a candy store being able to read all this stuff that was verboten in TWI and, moreso, because I had never heard of any of it before even though it's been around forever.
David,
Oakspear, Lost Christianities sounds like a good read, too. That seems to be the conclusion that I keep running into with the things I've been looking at. BTW, I was talking to my brother about your return to the Celtic background and beliefs and he thinks that's totally cool! He has been studying a lot about Celtic history lately and is fascinated with it. :)
Since you have so much to contribute compared than lowly me, how about getting specific?
You wrote: "the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago."
Like WHAT?
Please name five such things and then discuss one.
I'd like to see what wonderful things the egg heads have discovered for us lowly followers.
I'd like to see what wonderful things the egg heads have discovered for us lowly followers.
I get the impression that you're really not interested in such things at all.
And never mind the findings of the last 50 years - the average "Way follower" acquainted with nothing but PFAL seems to lag far behind in the disciplines, methodologies and theories of serious "Biblical research" for the past 100+ years. This is painfully apparent everytime I bring up the mention of such topics as the questionable Pauline authorship behind the "Pastoral Epistles" of 1&2 Timothy and Titus, from whence material (in my own personal observation and experience with twi) many of the roots of idolatrous "Bible worship" derive. This stuff is not new. The theory was introduced as early as 1921 (if not earlier in the German schools) and has persevered to the present day.
I must confess, as much as I appreciate their findings, a part of me also has an axe to grind with "egg heads" and the various churches which have apparently been derelict in their duty of educating the general public with this kind of critical information.
If they had taken the time to "translate" their findings from their pompous scholarlise into the language of the common "lowlife", we might have spared a lot of religious abuse, headaches and heartaches from such outfits as twi.
Since you have so much to contribute compared than lowly me, how about getting specific?
You wrote: "the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago."
Like WHAT?
Please name five such things and then discuss one.
I'd like to see what wonderful things the egg heads have discovered for us lowly followers.
Trade you three for one, Mike.
Mention any ONE and discuss,
then I'll mention THREE and discuss ALL THREE.
Surely with a handicap that big, you can come up with SOMETHING.
You wrote: "BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago."
You wrote: "BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago."
I've heard your BS before about some "wonderful" discoveries regarding ancient texts and now you come out with it again.
I decline your offer for a trade and I repeat my BS call on your assertion that there have been "major" breakthroughs in textual studies. Your offer is more a dare and I see no payoff for me to put my time into it. I don't need your deal to say "BS!"
Thread topic: the bottom line remains that we don't have the originals and there are such a huge number of discrepancies from the sloppy copying of the originals that the critical texts were a necessity to wade through all the TATTERED REMNANTS. And then, even after a dozen critical texts are produced EVEN THEY have inconsistencies as anyone with an interlinear can see by looking at all the footnotes. There's even no proof that ANY ONE of the critical texts have it right for any one passage.
I don't need your deals to call your bluff. You offered to ALL the readers here a bluff and I called you on it. NO DEAL.
Even if the originals were discovered in a cave tomorrow what proof could there be that they were said originals? How would anyone even get a strong hunch that they were the originals?
I say BS because you have no wonderful discoveries to report.
Thread topic: Biblical text research is a huge pile of opinions, guesses, theories, sense knowledge workings, and devilish interferences, just like it was 50 years ago and 100 years ago. There's NOTHING spiritually authoritative in that field. It can be useful for verification at times for someone who does already have some spiritual insights, but it's not what it's members tout it to be.
I'm out of the deal, WW. Never was in in the first place.
Now to all the folks at home, tell THEM what the great discoveries are and I'll look the other way.
Tell THEM what you meant when you wrote: "BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago."
You wrote: "BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago."
I've heard your BS before about some "wonderful" discoveries regarding ancient texts and now you come out with it again.
[i've never MENTIONED it before.
So I'm curious what voices you've heard that have mentioned it...]
I decline your offer for a trade and I repeat my BS call on your assertion that there have been "major" breakthroughs in textual studies. Your offer is more a dare and I see no payoff for me to put my time into it. I don't need your deal to say "BS!"
[Anybody ELSE would.
See, the whole "tattered remnants" thing was an
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION.
That means that-until you support it- there's no contextual difference
between it and "unicorns carried off copies of the text!"
We only have your say-so.
Since we've known this was all just a smokescreen to claim
another Bible was NEEDED,
we knew your claim was made in the ABSENCE of any supporting
documentation.
So, I offered you a chance to surprise us-show us you have more
to offer than just pulling something out of your...hat.
In exchange, I'll answer your own claim I don't have an answer-
which in ITSELF was a dare-
and I'll offer TRIPLE the documentation YOU will.
In short, I offered you the chance to show you had something to
offer, and could at least equal 1/3 of my own "offer".
Oddly, the fact that YOU started with a dare has escaped you.
If you actually HAD some documentation, and I really WAS
making this up-which you claim are BOTH true-
then it would take you little effort to show me up-
demonstrate to neutral observers that you actually HAD
something to offer, while one of your detractors DIDN'T.
Since you've miserably failed at those efforts so far,
a gift-wrapped opportunity like this one would have proved
useful-if you weren't all bluff.
I offered a challenge, laid the odds on the weaker side,
and STILL you won't meet it. I think most people can see
which way the wind blows there...]
Thread topic: the bottom line remains that we don't have the originals
[Technically correct and universally agreed-upon.]
and there are such a huge number of discrepancies
[unsupported assertion. Wild claim.]
from the sloppy copying of the originals
[ANOTHER unsupported assertion. ANOTHER wild claim.]
that the critical texts were a necessity to wade through all the TATTERED REMNANTS.
[ANOTHER unsupported assertion. In stereo.
Doesn't even sound like you know what a "critical text" IS.]
And then, even after a dozen critical texts are produced
[You know of a dozen? You're familiar with ANY?]
EVEN THEY have inconsistencies as anyone with an interlinear can see by looking at all the footnotes.
["He said" for "Jesus said", and alternate spellings count as "inconsistencies"?
I guess if you're desperate to find ANYTHING to call one, they count.]
There's even no proof that ANY ONE of the critical texts have it right for any one passage.
[unsupported assertion. As I said before, my CURRENT reading's sufficient
to address it...presuming you want to go beyond bald statements made
by fiat.]
I don't need your deals to call your bluff. You offered to ALL the readers here a bluff and I called you on it.
[YOU started by claiming "TATTERED REMNANTS."
THAT'S a bluff, and your entire claim of this is a smokescreen
to hide that, and switch the subject.
Sorry, I was paying attention.
YOU support your assertion ONE time,
I'll support mine in TRIPLICATE.
I'm confident in this because:
A) You lack support for one time
B) I have sufficient support for three.]
NO DEAL.
[Leaving, of course, no support for your doctrine
of "tattered remnants", which was the original point you're hiding]
Even if the originals were discovered in a cave tomorrow what proof could there be that they were said originals? How would anyone even get a strong hunch that they were the originals?
[Well,
if one has already concluded-as you have-that it is impossible,
such a text would be mislabelled anyway, so that's a moot point.
It's also a smokescreen for your unsupported opening assertion
about "tattered remnants", which you've engaged in this new
song-and-dance about my comment to conceal.]
I say BS because you have no wonderful discoveries to report.
[Which, of course, means that your doctrine declares discoveries
are impossible, so you don't believe in them, even when dealing with
one face-to-face. I presume you're also woefully under-researched
on the subject, since you find the concept of seeing you're wrong so
utterly repugnant that you do everything you can to avoid
facing it. I'm doubtful you know as much on the subject as vpw
did as of pfal, and HE was under-researched for his time-frame.]
Biblical text research is a huge pile of opinions, guesses, theories, sense knowledge workings, and devilish interferences, just like it was 50 years ago and 100 years ago.
[it's SO much easier to dismiss entire fields of study than to
actually EXAMINE and EVALUATE them. It saves SO much time
to declare oneself right by fiat. It allows one's bubble to remain
intact much faster and surer than any honest evaluation...]
There's NOTHING spiritually authoritative in that field. It can be useful for verification at times for someone who does already have some spiritual insights, but it's not what it's members tout it to be.
["Spiritually authoritative" meaning,
an angel drops in and announces
"this is the correct text".
If that's the case, I agree.
Otherwise, your casual dismissal shows an ignorance of the fields
and a haste to dismiss them without a glance.]
I'm out of the deal, WW. Never was in in the first place.
[...otherwise, you'd demonstrate your own claim was hot air,
and I'd spank you with a paddle again,
even with a 3-for-1 handicap.
Care to disprove it?
Please, please try.]
Now to all the folks at home, tell THEM what the great discoveries are and I'll look the other way.
[My offer was to demonstrate the substance of BOTH our claims-
especially since yours is an assertion based on "faith"
rather than on "evidence".
I've noticed that every time I ask for documentation of
your claims, you run off-
even when I offer something of greater value in exchange.
Supposedly, you're right and the rest of us are wrong-
but your claims can't hold up to even casual scrutiny
or even a comparison.
You know, if you ever actually WERE right,
you might salvage your reputation somewhat,
earn a little respect, and people might conceivably read
some post of yours and agree sometime.
For you, that would be a rich prize.
Too bad it's unattainable.]
Tell THEM what you meant when you wrote: "BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago."
[i made you an offer. I STILL never agreed to you assigning "homework".
I'm ready to support my claim as soon as I have a reason-
which, in this case, means actually seeing you offer something
of SUBSTANCE. Yet again, you've weaselled out.
If I really AM bluffing-which, supposedly, I've been doing-
there's a very easy way to demonstrate it....]
========
Oh, and Dan?
Mike's hoping you'll jump in and do his work FOR him.
Here's some evidence: the existence of the critical texts.
WHY the critical texts? Why did Stevens and then all the others, starting in 1550, take on such projects? Why did they need to criticize the most ancient manuscripts? Because they saw a need. They saw the tattered remnants needed cleaning up. Even still, they failed to even agree with each other (see interlinear footnotes for evidence), let alone get an spiritually authoritative end product.
And a spiritually authoritative end product would need more than angels to declare it, because there are false angels to reckon with. Without the Spirit of God working in a man of God there's nothing authoritative whatsoever. Theologians can talk about God, but can they HEAR Him?
You may have forgotten your previous bluff but I didn't. What do you mean by these words of yours (the audience is waiting): "BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago."
You wrote: "The vast majority of the texts DO agree with each other- compare any 2 interlinears for evidence. Sheesh, I did that back in twi..."
All you need is one interlinear that is footnoted to show many texts.
Mine has the Stevens text as a base, and the footnotes document all the deviations that about ten other texts take from it.
EVERY PAGE is littered with footnotes of deviations... and these are in the CLEANED UP versions of the tattered remnants.
We were taught that if ONE WORD is changed we no longer have THE Word of God. I believe that. I saw how Eve didn't believe that, and succumbed to a huge lie as a result.
***
Lots of people are still waiting for some examples of the innovations in textual studies you alluded to. Are you balking due to the innovations having a pointy headed overintellectual inapplicability to our spiritual life?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
37
23
30
24
Popular Days
Jan 11
29
Jan 6
27
Jan 9
20
Jan 5
17
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 37 posts
WordWolf 23 posts
Mike 30 posts
markomalley 24 posts
Popular Days
Jan 11 2006
29 posts
Jan 6 2006
27 posts
Jan 9 2006
20 posts
Jan 5 2006
17 posts
George Aar
I was O.K. with it until I got to the line "Until now, that is."
So the really smart guy is going to straighten us all out again, eh?
Sorry, Belle, don't know nuthin' 'bout the book, but the flyleaf notes are already giving me the jitters...
Edited by George AarLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Well, here's the reviews from the "Amazon" readers (there's 25 currently):
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006073817...glance&n=283155
They seem to like it pretty well...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Thanks, George. I didn't think to check Amazon for reviews. I'll read them.
I'm also wary of people who NOW have the truth that's been hidden and mis-understood for years. ;) Did reading the reviews, if you did, change your opinion?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Belle, I have read his book on the gnostic gospels and epistles which includes Gospel of Thomas, gospel
of Mary Magdelene, Epistle of Barnabus, etc. Interesting reading for non-canonical scripture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Belle,
Yeah, they might have changed my mind a bit.
Still pretty skeptical though. I mean, it's not like nobody's ever studied The Bible before.
And it's not like all sorts of new material has just been found. Near as I know, at least for the New Testament, it's the same 'ol stuff that theologians have been moldering around with for years. So how's come this guy has found out all this hitherto unknown wisdom of the ages?
I hope he doesn't have a class to sign up for...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Speaking of *misquotes* ----
Here is one Sami posted in the "Silly Forum",
but makes a point about this topic ~~~~~~~~
Kinda makes ya wanna go hmmmmm, eh?
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Geo:
I read Lost Christianities by this guy this past year, and it wasn't too bad. He makes a good case for the bible that we have today being the end product of factional infighting among the differing versions of Christianity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Thanks, y'all!
George, I agree with the skepticism, I really do! I also tug with the idea that so much was repressed and hidden by organized religion and politics that some things are now coming to light because of people like this dude and because of the information age where we have access to so much more information than we have ever had before. It's also easier to find and learn of things that we might otherwise have never found in a small town library or church.
TLB, you have really studied and read a lot, haven't you??? My little brother gave me a book on Mary Magdalene this year for Christmas and I'm looking forward to reading it. I feel like a kid in a candy store being able to read all this stuff that was verboten in TWI and, moreso, because I had never heard of any of it before even though it's been around forever.
David,
Oakspear, Lost Christianities sounds like a good read, too. That seems to be the conclusion that I keep running into with the things I've been looking at. BTW, I was talking to my brother about your return to the Celtic background and beliefs and he thinks that's totally cool! He has been studying a lot about Celtic history lately and is fascinated with it. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Does anyone hear the phrase "tattered remnants" being faintly whispered in the wind?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Uh, no. But then, I was never much good at hearing voices...
Edited by George AarLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Those with any memories of the "Mike Wars" will remember the phrase "tattered remnants" well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
So speaking of 'tattered remnants', what are you doing adding to the frey, ... hmmmm?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
He's throwing in a a cliche.
Since he doesn't have SUBSTANCE to add, he's pretending he actually
ADDED to the discussion.
He's determined to know as little about the subject as possible.
He STARTED from his position,
and anything that sounds like it might support his position,
he declares accurate and calls a victory.
This is the same type of thinking that gave us Piltdown Man.
===========
As for me,
my reading of late suggests Mike's position is silly.
I'm not afraid of books like the one that started the thread.
However, I recommend balancing the read with all OTHER
books on the subject rather than just embracing it immediately.
BTW,
the last 50 years has introduced information that may have
been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in
Biblical documents 50 years ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WW,
Since you have so much to contribute compared than lowly me, how about getting specific?
You wrote: "the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago."
Like WHAT?
Please name five such things and then discuss one.
I'd like to see what wonderful things the egg heads have discovered for us lowly followers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
I get the impression that you're really not interested in such things at all.
And never mind the findings of the last 50 years - the average "Way follower" acquainted with nothing but PFAL seems to lag far behind in the disciplines, methodologies and theories of serious "Biblical research" for the past 100+ years. This is painfully apparent everytime I bring up the mention of such topics as the questionable Pauline authorship behind the "Pastoral Epistles" of 1&2 Timothy and Titus, from whence material (in my own personal observation and experience with twi) many of the roots of idolatrous "Bible worship" derive. This stuff is not new. The theory was introduced as early as 1921 (if not earlier in the German schools) and has persevered to the present day.
I must confess, as much as I appreciate their findings, a part of me also has an axe to grind with "egg heads" and the various churches which have apparently been derelict in their duty of educating the general public with this kind of critical information.
If they had taken the time to "translate" their findings from their pompous scholarlise into the language of the common "lowlife", we might have spared a lot of religious abuse, headaches and heartaches from such outfits as twi.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Trade you three for one, Mike.
Mention any ONE and discuss,
then I'll mention THREE and discuss ALL THREE.
Surely with a handicap that big, you can come up with SOMETHING.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WW,
You wrote: "BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago."
BS!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Mike, so Piffle doesn't make into this category either? Or hey, maybe WW was taking about The Class©.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Make up your mind, Mike.
Did you really want to know what's been uncovered,
(no you don't)
or do you just want to presume that anything you've never heard of,
doesn't exist
(bingo),
especially since it discredits your theology?
I'm waiting for one (just one) source from Mike that suggests
"tattered remnants",
just one sign that Mike didn't toss out all the evidence and then
decide there WAS no evidence.
Then we can discuss that and the three (two more than one)
sources I promised.
I didn't ask Mike prove himself as capable as WordWolf,
or even HALF as good.
I asked for Mike to prove himself 1/3 as good as WordWolf,
which is a goal Mike may potentially reach.
This new "insightful comment" - "BS"-
is this really the closes Mike can do in backing up his claim?
Is he honestly and truly THAT incompetent that even the
SLIGHTEST proof of his position is impossible?
We'll see.
If his followups are equally "insightful",
then we have our answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WW,
You wrote: "BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago."
I've heard your BS before about some "wonderful" discoveries regarding ancient texts and now you come out with it again.
I decline your offer for a trade and I repeat my BS call on your assertion that there have been "major" breakthroughs in textual studies. Your offer is more a dare and I see no payoff for me to put my time into it. I don't need your deal to say "BS!"
Thread topic: the bottom line remains that we don't have the originals and there are such a huge number of discrepancies from the sloppy copying of the originals that the critical texts were a necessity to wade through all the TATTERED REMNANTS. And then, even after a dozen critical texts are produced EVEN THEY have inconsistencies as anyone with an interlinear can see by looking at all the footnotes. There's even no proof that ANY ONE of the critical texts have it right for any one passage.
I don't need your deals to call your bluff. You offered to ALL the readers here a bluff and I called you on it. NO DEAL.
Even if the originals were discovered in a cave tomorrow what proof could there be that they were said originals? How would anyone even get a strong hunch that they were the originals?
I say BS because you have no wonderful discoveries to report.
Thread topic: Biblical text research is a huge pile of opinions, guesses, theories, sense knowledge workings, and devilish interferences, just like it was 50 years ago and 100 years ago. There's NOTHING spiritually authoritative in that field. It can be useful for verification at times for someone who does already have some spiritual insights, but it's not what it's members tout it to be.
I'm out of the deal, WW. Never was in in the first place.
Now to all the folks at home, tell THEM what the great discoveries are and I'll look the other way.
Tell THEM what you meant when you wrote: "BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago."
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[WordWolf in boldface again.]
'Mike':
WW,
You wrote: "BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago."
I've heard your BS before about some "wonderful" discoveries regarding ancient texts and now you come out with it again.
[i've never MENTIONED it before.
So I'm curious what voices you've heard that have mentioned it...]
I decline your offer for a trade and I repeat my BS call on your assertion that there have been "major" breakthroughs in textual studies. Your offer is more a dare and I see no payoff for me to put my time into it. I don't need your deal to say "BS!"
[Anybody ELSE would.
See, the whole "tattered remnants" thing was an
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION.
That means that-until you support it- there's no contextual difference
between it and "unicorns carried off copies of the text!"
We only have your say-so.
Since we've known this was all just a smokescreen to claim
another Bible was NEEDED,
we knew your claim was made in the ABSENCE of any supporting
documentation.
So, I offered you a chance to surprise us-show us you have more
to offer than just pulling something out of your...hat.
In exchange, I'll answer your own claim I don't have an answer-
which in ITSELF was a dare-
and I'll offer TRIPLE the documentation YOU will.
In short, I offered you the chance to show you had something to
offer, and could at least equal 1/3 of my own "offer".
Oddly, the fact that YOU started with a dare has escaped you.
If you actually HAD some documentation, and I really WAS
making this up-which you claim are BOTH true-
then it would take you little effort to show me up-
demonstrate to neutral observers that you actually HAD
something to offer, while one of your detractors DIDN'T.
Since you've miserably failed at those efforts so far,
a gift-wrapped opportunity like this one would have proved
useful-if you weren't all bluff.
I offered a challenge, laid the odds on the weaker side,
and STILL you won't meet it. I think most people can see
which way the wind blows there...]
Thread topic: the bottom line remains that we don't have the originals
[Technically correct and universally agreed-upon.]
and there are such a huge number of discrepancies
[unsupported assertion. Wild claim.]
from the sloppy copying of the originals
[ANOTHER unsupported assertion. ANOTHER wild claim.]
that the critical texts were a necessity to wade through all the TATTERED REMNANTS.
[ANOTHER unsupported assertion. In stereo.
Doesn't even sound like you know what a "critical text" IS.]
And then, even after a dozen critical texts are produced
[You know of a dozen? You're familiar with ANY?]
EVEN THEY have inconsistencies as anyone with an interlinear can see by looking at all the footnotes.
["He said" for "Jesus said", and alternate spellings count as "inconsistencies"?
I guess if you're desperate to find ANYTHING to call one, they count.]
There's even no proof that ANY ONE of the critical texts have it right for any one passage.
[unsupported assertion. As I said before, my CURRENT reading's sufficient
to address it...presuming you want to go beyond bald statements made
by fiat.]
I don't need your deals to call your bluff. You offered to ALL the readers here a bluff and I called you on it.
[YOU started by claiming "TATTERED REMNANTS."
THAT'S a bluff, and your entire claim of this is a smokescreen
to hide that, and switch the subject.
Sorry, I was paying attention.
YOU support your assertion ONE time,
I'll support mine in TRIPLICATE.
I'm confident in this because:
A) You lack support for one time
B) I have sufficient support for three.]
NO DEAL.
[Leaving, of course, no support for your doctrine
of "tattered remnants", which was the original point you're hiding]
Even if the originals were discovered in a cave tomorrow what proof could there be that they were said originals? How would anyone even get a strong hunch that they were the originals?
[Well,
if one has already concluded-as you have-that it is impossible,
such a text would be mislabelled anyway, so that's a moot point.
It's also a smokescreen for your unsupported opening assertion
about "tattered remnants", which you've engaged in this new
song-and-dance about my comment to conceal.]
I say BS because you have no wonderful discoveries to report.
[Which, of course, means that your doctrine declares discoveries
are impossible, so you don't believe in them, even when dealing with
one face-to-face. I presume you're also woefully under-researched
on the subject, since you find the concept of seeing you're wrong so
utterly repugnant that you do everything you can to avoid
facing it. I'm doubtful you know as much on the subject as vpw
did as of pfal, and HE was under-researched for his time-frame.]
Biblical text research is a huge pile of opinions, guesses, theories, sense knowledge workings, and devilish interferences, just like it was 50 years ago and 100 years ago.
[it's SO much easier to dismiss entire fields of study than to
actually EXAMINE and EVALUATE them. It saves SO much time
to declare oneself right by fiat. It allows one's bubble to remain
intact much faster and surer than any honest evaluation...]
There's NOTHING spiritually authoritative in that field. It can be useful for verification at times for someone who does already have some spiritual insights, but it's not what it's members tout it to be.
["Spiritually authoritative" meaning,
an angel drops in and announces
"this is the correct text".
If that's the case, I agree.
Otherwise, your casual dismissal shows an ignorance of the fields
and a haste to dismiss them without a glance.]
I'm out of the deal, WW. Never was in in the first place.
[...otherwise, you'd demonstrate your own claim was hot air,
and I'd spank you with a paddle again,
even with a 3-for-1 handicap.
Care to disprove it?
Please, please try.]
Now to all the folks at home, tell THEM what the great discoveries are and I'll look the other way.
[My offer was to demonstrate the substance of BOTH our claims-
especially since yours is an assertion based on "faith"
rather than on "evidence".
I've noticed that every time I ask for documentation of
your claims, you run off-
even when I offer something of greater value in exchange.
Supposedly, you're right and the rest of us are wrong-
but your claims can't hold up to even casual scrutiny
or even a comparison.
You know, if you ever actually WERE right,
you might salvage your reputation somewhat,
earn a little respect, and people might conceivably read
some post of yours and agree sometime.
For you, that would be a rich prize.
Too bad it's unattainable.]
Tell THEM what you meant when you wrote: "BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago."
[i made you an offer. I STILL never agreed to you assigning "homework".
I'm ready to support my claim as soon as I have a reason-
which, in this case, means actually seeing you offer something
of SUBSTANCE. Yet again, you've weaselled out.
If I really AM bluffing-which, supposedly, I've been doing-
there's a very easy way to demonstrate it....]
========
Oh, and Dan?
Mike's hoping you'll jump in and do his work FOR him.
If you offer ANYTHING, he'll do his usual
"see-that's what I meant all along."
Figured you'd want to know that BEFORE
he pulls it again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Here's some evidence: the existence of the critical texts.
WHY the critical texts? Why did Stevens and then all the others, starting in 1550, take on such projects? Why did they need to criticize the most ancient manuscripts? Because they saw a need. They saw the tattered remnants needed cleaning up. Even still, they failed to even agree with each other (see interlinear footnotes for evidence), let alone get an spiritually authoritative end product.
And a spiritually authoritative end product would need more than angels to declare it, because there are false angels to reckon with. Without the Spirit of God working in a man of God there's nothing authoritative whatsoever. Theologians can talk about God, but can they HEAR Him?
You may have forgotten your previous bluff but I didn't. What do you mean by these words of yours (the audience is waiting): "BTW, the last 50 years has introduced information that may have been unimagined by Christians who lacked a background in Biblical documents 50 years ago."
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mike,
if you're going to discuss text, that's a good thing.
I recommend you go away, check your sources,
THEN post. Otherwise, the posts will waste everyone's time
and you look like shooting from the hip is ALL you can offer.
I'd like your position represented honestly.
=======
Oh, and Dan?
(Sorry to keep bugging you.)
Sorry about this interruption to your thread.
I hope you're at least getting entertainment value
while this plays out...
Thank you for your tolerance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WW,
You wrote: "The vast majority of the texts DO agree with each other- compare any 2 interlinears for evidence. Sheesh, I did that back in twi..."
All you need is one interlinear that is footnoted to show many texts.
Mine has the Stevens text as a base, and the footnotes document all the deviations that about ten other texts take from it.
EVERY PAGE is littered with footnotes of deviations... and these are in the CLEANED UP versions of the tattered remnants.
We were taught that if ONE WORD is changed we no longer have THE Word of God. I believe that. I saw how Eve didn't believe that, and succumbed to a huge lie as a result.
***
Lots of people are still waiting for some examples of the innovations in textual studies you alluded to. Are you balking due to the innovations having a pointy headed overintellectual inapplicability to our spiritual life?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.