Rescuing The Bible From Fundmentalism

[Fawzo]

How about this? Can either of you point specifically to an altered biblical text? Put your theology and and philosophy aside and show me a text that was altered and the proof that it was altered.

That should not take take 30 pages of sectarian discourse; it should take about 2 paragraphs or less.

If I find time later this evening Brother I'll dig out my copy of Misquoting Jesus and find a few that Bart D. Erhman mention in his book "Misquoting Jesus" Another major problem is in the original translations from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek them self as I am sure you are aware of in your studies and as our beloved RabbiO has shown on quite a few occasions.

[Coolhand]

my words:

your words:

title of the Article :

I have assured you that I have read this article many times... and used it as a reference to check every one of the referenced documents, and books, and articles I have been able to find at this point, and have assured you I agree with the findings..

The topic does INDEED require all of the words Mr. Cronshaw has put into it, which was why I was having so much difficulty putting it all together into a concise post for you... I used the article for clarity and conciseness - FOR YOUR BENEFIT - as my words would have been much less clear, and would have repeated themselves much more frequently...

Did you say that the topic is not worth understanding - because if that is your assertion - there is no point continuing this with you.... but I must state that I have read your opinion of the Bible, and if you place no value in knowing how much of it has been preserved FAITHFULLY, my opinion of your words is affected....

What Scriptures are you claiming were altered?

[Brother Michael Sky]

gotcha COOLHAND... i understand... you refuse to read the supplied proof.... you want it posted again, so you can ignore it again?

[Coolhand]

If I find time later this evening Brother I'll dig out my copy of Misquoting Jesus and find a few that Bart D. Erhman mention in his book "Misquoting Jesus" Another major problem is in the original translations from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek them self as I am sure you are aware of in your studies and as our beloved RabbiO has shown on quite a few occasions.

Excellent!

I have "Misquoting Jesus" as well.

"The translator is a traitor" I know the problem.

Here is a link to online interlinear Bibles; Hebrew and Greek. I agree, quit screwing around with the English Bible for exegesis. Wouldn't it be nice to raise the bar that high.

gotcha COOLHAND... i understand... you refuse to read the supplied proof.... you want it posted again, so you can ignore it again?

....really?.......

[Brother Michael Sky]

the answer to your question is within my answer... thats the nature of question and answer.... but if the questioner - all of a sudden - cannot hear the answer... it is not the fault of the answerer... but in the " ears that do not hear "

[Coolhand]

gotcha COOLHAND... i understand... you refuse to read the supplied proof.... you want it posted again, so you can ignore it again?

So if I have this right, I am supposed to read 46 pages (I did a count) and then I am supposed to argue what I believe to be your side of an arguement with myself?

Is that it?

[Brother Michael Sky]

you will sit and argue this long, but refuse to read my answer.... you'll even count pages.... but refuse to read..... " eyes that do not see, and ears that do not hear " ring a bell COOL?

[Coolhand]

Amazing...............

[Brother Michael Sky]

yup... truly... right in front of you... and you run like the devil is at your heels....

you could read and rebut....

Edited October 30, 2010 by Brother Michael Sky

[Brother Michael Sky]

gotta go get ready for halloween... loved the brilliant conversation there Cool....

[Coolhand]

I read the article and saw a lot of one man quoting another man; no actual textual displays for the debates. Definately nothing I see worth rebutting, definately nothing new anyways.

Doctrines about I am not interested in arguing about. In addition, the whole Arian debate was argued for thousands of years; not interesting.

From page one:

Thus, modern Christians cling to this doctrine -- ignoring overwhelming evidence to the contrary -- evidence that demonstrates conclusively that our Bible has been severely altered and edited . . .

And from page three:

"Learned men, so called Correctores were, following the church meeting at Nicea 325 AD, selected by the church authorities to scrutinize the sacred texts and rewrite them in order to correct their meaning in accordance with the views which the church had just sanctioned."

...which is the big set up for....

From page five:

The problem is that there is strong evidence to support the position that many of the most important original passages of scripture have been so cleansed from all the surviving Greek Manuscripts, that they no longer exist in the texts we use to make our modern-day translations.

Which is where I should have stopped an hour ago, but didn't.

Beside all the quoting and misquoting going, on the argument I assume you are taking is:

"The proof that the Scriptures were altered,is evidenced by the thorough job done by the corrupt "Correctores" that destroyed all the evidence."

Edited October 30, 2010 by Coolhand

[Coolhand]

Since the 4th century seems to be the target of the alleged crime, this might place an interesting spin on things:

"Category:3rd-century biblical manuscripts"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:3rd-century_biblical_manuscripts

The 4th Edition Greek New Tesament has a rather thorough apparatus which lists the variants and which papyrus, or uncial, miniscule, version, or lectionary they come from. Many people who hold the point of view that Cronshaw holds seem suprised that so many of Greek texts predate the 4th century.

[Atwater Vitki]

I can only add, reading and comprehension is a must....it wasn't difficult to understand...it was difficult to read so much...on a subject I am not personally involved with to the degree others are....I should have been more clear. My "concise" statement was in reference to on topic, valid rebuttal.

My final on this will have to be what was clearly stated in the orig posting by Brother Sky:

"Thus, modern Christians cling to this doctrine -- ignoring overwhelming evidence to the contrary -- evidence that demonstrates conclusively that our Bible has been severely altered and edited -- because they fail to grasp the very foundational principles of the New Covenant itself -- principles that are not historical, but spiritual. It is not until we understand that the Bible is a road-map that leads us to the Gate of the Kingdom, and the Word that is written in our hearts -- rather than a final revelation from God to man -- that we are able to even begin to come to terms with the Spiritual Gospel of Christ that can never be corrupted."

Further on in the article and even more on the website gives the specifics that need to be look at by the one refusing to admit the fallible nature of what we read today...it appears the rest of us have.

Blessings of Peace,

Edited October 30, 2010 by RevAl

[Coolhand]

I can only add, reading and comprehension is a must....it wasn't difficult to understand...it was difficult to read so much...on a subject I am not personally involved with to the degree others are....I should have been more clear. My "concise" statement was in reference to on topic, valid rebuttal.

My final on this will have to be what was clearly stated in the orig posting by Brother Sky:

"Thus, modern Christians cling to this doctrine -- ignoring overwhelming evidence to the contrary -- evidence that demonstrates conclusively that our Bible has been severely altered and edited -- because they fail to grasp the very foundational principles of the New Covenant itself -- principles that are not historical, but spiritual. It is not until we understand that the Bible is a road-map that leads us to the Gate of the Kingdom, and the Word that is written in our hearts -- rather than a final revelation from God to man -- that we are able to even begin to come to terms with the Spiritual Gospel of Christ that can never be corrupted."

Further on in the article and even more on the website gives the specifics that need to be look at by the one refusing to admit the fallible nature of what we read today...it appears the rest of us have.

Blessings of Peace,

Are we talking about texual evidence, or the writings of the church fathers (and others) arguing over who the bigger heretic is?

[Brother Michael Sky]

apparently, if it doesn't immediately agree with your point of view - you'll never know....

[Coolhand]

Looking for a good link that compares Dead Sea Scrolls with the Hebrew Tanakh.

Any ideas?

[Coolhand]

Here one for ya:

[Coolhand]

Here is another:

http://www.bartdehrman.com/mp3_MBTS_resurrection/MBTS_resurrection.htm

[Brother Michael Sky]

wow, how much time did you spend finding that?.... their lips are moving, but they have zero understanding.....

who doesn't understand the Protestant reformation?

I would like to explain my views of all the points missed by it.... but you wouldn't read it..... because my previous post points them out in advance anyway.... ( that's how I know you wouldn't read it )

you're a broken record at this point Cool.... how about reading my post above and giving us your thoughts - you seem to have some free time.....

Edited November 1, 2010 by Brother Michael Sky

[Coolhand]

wow, how much time did you spend finding that?.... their lips are moving, but they have zero understanding.....

who doesn't understand the Protestant reformation?

I would like to explain my views of all the points missed by it.... but you wouldn't read it..... because my previous post points them out in advance anyway.... ( that's how I know you wouldn't read it )

you're a broken record at this point Cool.... how about reading my post above and giving us your thoughts - you seem to have some free time.....

You haven't explained anything, you copy and pasted something; unless you claim you wrote somthing that has an author attached to it.

I did read your post, by the way; the whole thing. But that still is no substitute for you stating your case, but whatever; I figure if you had something to say you would say it instead of playing all these games.

In teresting point from the article you posted is that Professor Nestle, the one whose name is on the Greek New Testament that the major Bible translations use. What are your thoughts on that? Its almost a "which way is it" deal.