[duffyd]

To return to the subject of this thread

There is an underlying consensus that the bible is "accepted" as a collection of poetry, ethical principles, and historical records of dubious provenance and variable reliability, but generally consistent with the known history of the Middle East up to about 2000 years ago.

There is general disdain for Duffy's bizarre assertions and interpretations of some heavily curated and multiply retranslated aspects of the New Testament, which have nothing to do with the subject under discussion.

You inched closer, not meaning to, but you did. You know what the best response a salesman can hope to get from a potential customer? "NO!" It's his best friend. Why? Without it he has nothing to work through. An easy, "Yes" stinks for a number of reasons, but an emphatic "NO!" is to die for.

Here's my point. You raise objections regarding why you refuse to believe in Jesus Christ GOD's Son. Most of them you toss out without thinking. But, every once in a while you get serious and expose the real reason why you reject HIM. That is precisely where the work needs to be done.

"Duffy's bizarre assertions and interpretations of some heavily curated and multiply retranslated aspects of the New Testament, which have nothing to do with the subject under discussion."

Not a thing bizarre about them, unless you'd like to explain what's bizarre?
 
"heavily curated and multiply retranslated aspects of the New Testament..."
To which aspects of the N.T. do you refer? You took off the last time I asked you to get specific. It has angered you. There's hope.

You will not get specific, unfortunately. But, the key for you to see GOD comes down to a point in time when you decide intellectually to get into the fine details. When you can't run any further, HE very well may pop into your existence.

Dig, dig, dig into the grammar and the literay styles and the textual meaning of the words and you will find that what we have in the New Testament today in any of the major published accounts is more than dead on accurate to be 1,000% trustworthy. That's what the finest N.T. scholars say. You know that. But, search the Scriptures for yourself and you will find HIM.

What I am sharing on this topic is absolutely relevant. Scientists believe the Bible because it is completely reliable. Remember, too, it was written primarily by Jewish people who have more on the ball than any other people group. They are the most incredibly talented people in every respect.
(not including sports.)

[duffyd]

To return to the subject of this thread

There is an underlying consensus that the bible is "accepted" as a collection of poetry, ethical principles, and historical records of dubious provenance and variable reliability, but generally consistent with the known history of the Middle East up to about 2000 years ago.

There is general disdain for Duffy's bizarre assertions and interpretations of some heavily curated and multiply retranslated aspects of the New Testament, which have nothing to do with the subject under discussion.

To return to the subject of this thread

There is an underlying consensus that the bible is "accepted" as a collection of poetry, ethical principles, and historical records of dubious provenance and variable reliability, but generally consistent with the known history of the Middle East up to about 2000 years ago.

Just curious, Al, when did you ever care one iota what the underlying consensus of anything is?

[alancalverd]

dig into the grammar and the literay styles and the textual meaning of the words and you will find that what we have in the New Testament.....

…..is the grammar, style and chosen content of the last editor. Which is why I praised the King James version for the power and beauty of its language.

Contrast the thunderous "O ye of little faith"  with the New English Bible's simpering schoolgirl  "How little faith you have!" Give the guy some dignity, please - he was killed for his oratory.

And Jesus' response to Pilate "Thou hast said" (KJV) which completely inverts the implicit blasphemy of  latterday versions.

"Release unto us Barabbas". Funny how an otherwise unknown thief pops up in the last scene, says and does nothing, and gets a name credit. And what a name: bar-abbas - the Son of the Father. Imagine being crucified by a pun.

The bible says whatever its latest editor wants it to say. As it always has. So a healthy pinch of salt is recommended. And it's not just the NT that blows with the wind. English versions of Genesis vary in their assertion that animals do or do not have souls, depending on the fashion for bear-baiting at the time of writing.     

[alancalverd]

Remember, too, it was written primarily by Jewish people

Not the Tyndale or King James Version, on which all subsequent English revisions depend. The Jews were expelled from England in the 13th century and not readmitted until 50 years after the KJV was written.

[duffyd]

"Release unto us Barabbas". Funny how an otherwise unknown thief pops up in the last scene, says and does nothing, and gets a name credit. And what a name: bar-abbas - the Son of the Father. Imagine being crucified by a pun.

Still running.
Inverted?
Barabbas?
It shows how badly they wanted to get rid of HIM, just like you do. Hey boys, here's Jesus! Want Him? You can choose Him.

Nah. Free Barabbas, he's our man! We want that radical Rabbi to pay for His many sins. Crucify that lying pig!

[duffyd]

Remember, too, it was written primarily by Jewish people

Not the Tyndale or King James Version, on which all subsequent English revisions depend. The Jews were expelled from England in the 13th century and not readmitted until 50 years after the KJV was written.

You want to play games. Play solitaire. For the folks genuinely interested:
There are over 5300 manuscripts available today and the vast majority of these, at least 95%, agree with and support the textus Receptus.
There are only a handful, approx 45 manuscripts that support the text that underlines the modern versions and this text is itself primarily based on just 2, Codex Sinaiticus and codex Vaticanus.
Follow In Truth
"What manuscripts did the KJV translators use?
Published by ljthriepland on September 30, 2018"

Guess who wrote the originals? "Bernie" He discovered ladies, too.

What impresses me is how perfectly I predict your non-answers. 1,000%.

[duffyd]

Remember, too, it was written primarily by Jewish people

Not the Tyndale or King James Version, on which all subsequent English revisions depend. The Jews were expelled from England in the 13th century and not readmitted until 50 years after the KJV was written.

some heavily curated and multiply retranslated aspects of the New Testament,

Thar she blows! Usain Alan is gone with the challenge. Again.

The question that scares him to death is simple and is based on his conjecture that: "some heavily curated and multiply retranslated aspects of the New Testament..."

Hide and watch Al disappear. Bro, I asked you before, which aspects? If you think you provided an answer in the gibberish you've shared, go directly to jail. Don't pass Go!

I do not want to humiliate Alan, but, apparently he's masochistic and doesn't mind if everyone knows this topic is not his forte.

[alancalverd]

 I was simply pointing out that you lied, whether from ignorance or deliberate intent. I'm inclined to be generous: I think you are deluded, not evil. But you might try to moderate your language if you want any sympathy.

[alancalverd]

There are only a handful, approx 45 manuscripts that support the text that underlines the modern versions and this text is itself primarily based on just 2, Codex Sinaiticus and codex Vaticanus.

Both written in Greek. By Jews? I think not. Our holy texts are written in Hebrew.

[duffyd]

There are only a handful, approx 45 manuscripts that support the text that underlines the modern versions and this text is itself primarily based on just 2, Codex Sinaiticus and codex Vaticanus.

Both written in Greek. By Jews? I think not. Our holy texts are written in Hebrew.

You have a point. I confess. I wrote the N.T. Busted cold. I needed to make a quick buck.

Bruce M. Metzger wrote,

In evaluating the significance of these statistics...one should consider, by way of contrast, the number of manuscripts which preserve the text of the ancient classics. Homer's Iliad...is preserved by 457 papyri, 2 uncial manuscripts, and 188 minuscule manuscripts. Among the tragedians the witnesses to Euripides are the most abundant; his extant works are preserved in 54 papyri and 276 parchment manuscripts, almost all of the later dating from the Byzantine period...the time between the composition of the books of the New Testament and the earliest extant copies is relatively brief. Instead of the lapse of a millennium or more, as is the case of not a few classical authors, several papyrus manuscripts of portions of the New Testament are extant which were copies within a century or so after the composition of the original documents

[duffyd]

There are only a handful, approx 45 manuscripts that support the text that underlines the modern versions and this text is itself primarily based on just 2, Codex Sinaiticus and codex Vaticanus.

Both written in Greek. By Jews? I think not. Our holy texts are written in Hebrew.

Gosh, I was under the impression you believe Christ was a Jewish Rabbi. Where oh where did you get that crazy notion?

Gary Habermas:
What is usually meant is that the New Testament has far more manuscript evidence from a far earlier period than other classical works. There are just under 6000 NT manuscripts, with copies of most of the NT dating from just 100 years or so after its writing. Classical sources almost always have fewer than 20 copies each and usually date from 700-1400 years after the composition of the work. In this regard, the classics are not as well attested. While this doesn't guarantee truthfulness, it means that it is much easier to reconstruct the New Testament text. Regarding genre, the Gospels are usually taken today to be examples of Roman biographies.

[Bored chemist]

If you think you provided an answer in the gibberish you've shared, go directly to jail. Don't pass Go!

Get a mirror.

[alancalverd]

I was under the impression you believe Christ was a Jewish Rabbi.

It says so in the bible. Who am I to doubt it? So he would have at least reading fluency in classical Hebrew. But I'm pretty sure he didn't write the NT (which deals with events after his death)  and certainly not in Greek.

You keep missing the point.
Nobody seriously contests that there's a fair bit of Jewish history in the bible, along with poetry and ancient laws, many of which are replicated in modern statutes.
The point of contention is the latterday superstitions that attach to bits of it.

[duffyd]

I was under the impression you believe Christ was a Jewish Rabbi.

It says so in the bible. Who am I to doubt it? So he would have at least reading fluency in classical Hebrew. But I'm pretty sure he didn't write the NT (which deals with events after his death)  and certainly not in Greek.

You keep missing the point.
Nobody seriously contests that there's a fair bit of Jewish history in the bible, along with poetry and ancient laws, many of which are replicated in modern statutes.
The point of contention is the latterday superstitions that attach to bits of it.

some heavily curated and multiply retranslated aspects of the New Testament,

Dr. Alan,
How many times have I asked you to identify where they got it wrong?

"...some heavily curated and multiply retranslated aspects of the New Testament,..." Dr. Alan

I got the point way back. You fail to understand that or is it part of your sprinting workouts?

"...he didn't write the NT (which deals with events after his death)" The N.T. deals with HIS birth to a virgin, His baptism, blowing the socks off religious leaders as a child, his years of ministry in which HE healed multitudes of folks and became a dire threat to the religious elites of His day, His fake trial, His murder, His forgiving pronouncement as blood poured out of His body as He suffocated on it, His resurrection and return to heaven from which He came among other events.

Not bad for a Jewish nobody who owned nothing, never authored anything, was penniless, had no political or military backing or agenda, never asked for a dime and loved everyone. HIS words are the foundation for Western Civilization. Oh yes, don't forget, HE said HE was GOD, He proved HE was GOD and HE lives today inside billions. 

[duffyd]

The point of contention is the latterday superstitions that attach to bits of it.

"The point of contention is the latterday superstitions that attach to bits of it."

Which are what, exactly? How do you know what is legitimate Jewish history, etc., and superstitions attached to it? How have you figured that out? If it was not written originally by Jews and not in Greek, why do you give any credibility to it?

Based on scientific analysis, how are my terms of endearment more offensive than the way you and your like-minded contributors depict my efforts?

Don't forget that you despise me for what I have done with the N.T.

[duffyd]

There is general disdain for Duffy's bizarre assertions and interpretations of some heavily curated and multiply retranslated aspects of the New Testament, which have nothing to do with the subject under discussion.

There is general disdain for Duffy's bizarre assertions and interpretations of some heavily curated and multiply retranslated aspects of the New Testament, which have nothing to do with the subject under discussion.

I was simply pointing out that you lied, whether from ignorance or deliberate intent. I'm inclined to be generous: I think you are deluded, not evil. But you might try to moderate your language if you want any sympathy.

I lied? When? I said the original authors of the N.T. were Jewish men, not the men who subsequently translated the autographs and the manuscripts and I didn't say JESUS wrote any of it. His original disciples were almost all Jewish folks. They recorded what HE said, and made copies of the original collection of those accounts, and from there it has been translated into almost every language on earth by various people with various beliefs. Apparently, that is not an issue for you because you accept the N.T. has accurate information in it. You doubt all of it is accurate because you believe portions were fabricated by non-Jewish folks and they used Greek to write those parts?

I never lied.

[alancalverd]

If it was not written originally by Jews and not in Greek, why do you give any credibility to it?

Too many negatives.
The credibility of a text is partly inherent (could such events have occurred?) and partly corroborative (is there independent evidence?). Doesn't matter what language it was written in, or by whom.

Eusebius [the author of the Codex Vaticanus] was baptized and ordained at Caesarea, where he was taught by the learned presbyter Pamphilus, to whom he was bound by ties of respect and affection and from whom he derived the name “Eusebius Pamphili” (the son or servant of Pamphilus). Pamphilus came to be persecuted by the Romans for his beliefs and died in martyrdom in 310.

A Christian, not a Jew.

[duffyd]

There are only a handful, approx 45 manuscripts that support the text that underlines the modern versions and this text is itself primarily based on just 2, Codex Sinaiticus and codex Vaticanus.

Both written in Greek. By Jews? I think not. Our holy texts are written in Hebrew.

The autographs. The first recorded books and letters that are the N.T. in its original state, they were written mostly by Jewish men who were his first disciples and by Jewish disciples who wrote down what the initial disciples shared with them. It was primarily a Jewish movement at first.  Of course it's been translated by others since then.

[alancalverd]

You fail to distinguish between the supposed source documents of the NT and the NT itself.

[Bored chemist]

I never lied.

Yes you did.
Repeatedly, for example:

Combine this evidence with all the other evidence we have and there is no doubt JESUS is exactly WHO HE claimed to be to a scientific certainty.

Christ is blamed for practically every evil imaginable

Got any evidence for that?