Could God reincarnate humans if he wanted to?

[shunyadragon]

There is a minority of scholars which would disagree with many of their choices as to the original reading of texts too. There is a common consensus by scholars on both sides of the readings that the gospel manuscripts included the names for which they are named too.

By far the majority of scholars consider the names assigned t the gospels as authors were assigned after ~150 AD. There is no evidence for the existence of the gospels in the time that the authors attributed lived.

[Tassman]

There is a minority of scholars which would disagree with many of their choices as to the original reading of texts too. There is a common consensus by scholars on both sides of the readings that the gospel manuscripts included the names for which they are named too.

[Sparko]

By far the majority of scholars consider the names assigned t the gospels as authors were assigned after ~150 AD. There is no evidence for the existence of the gospels in the time that the authors attributed lived.

You keep repeating yourself. Quoting someone else's opinions is not evidence.

If you believe that the attributed authors did not write the 4 gospels, then provide actual evidence to prove it.

And we do have evidence the gospels existed before 150AD. They were extensively quoted by people like Clement of Rome and Polycarp who lived in the first century. And we have fragments of the gospels earlier than 150AD.

[rogue06]

Likely the earliest reference to the Gospels can be found in I Timothy 5:18 which is from the 1st century (even those who say Paul isn't the author place it no later than the first decades of the 2nd)



While the first part is quoting Deuteronomy 25:4, the second is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament but is a quote from Jesus contained in Luke 10:7.

Wayne A. Grudem, who served as the general editor of the ESV Study Bible, has pointed out in his The Canon of Scripture that



And note that Paul is quoting Luke here on the same level as Moses and calling both Scripture.

[Sparko]

Likely the earliest reference to the Gospels can be found in I Timothy 5:18 which is from the 1st century (even those who say Paul isn't the author place it no later than the first decades of the 2nd)



While the first part is quoting Deuteronomy 25:4, the second is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament but is a quote from Jesus contained in Luke 10:7.

Wayne A. Grudem, who served as the general editor of the ESV Study Bible, has pointed out in his The Canon of Scripture that



And note that Paul is quoting Luke here on the same level as Moses and calling both Scripture.

And we know Luke was one of the last gospels to be written. John being the last. and we know that Luke traveled with Paul and wrote Acts and so we know that Luke is the author of the Gospel according to Luke.

[shunyadragon]

You keep repeating yourself. Quoting someone else's opinions is not evidence.

If you believe that the attributed authors did not write the 4 gospels, then provide actual evidence to prove it.

And we do have evidence the gospels existed before 150AD. They were extensively quoted by people like Clement of Rome and Polycarp who lived in the first century. And we have fragments of the gospels earlier than 150AD.

There is only one gospel fragment of John that may possibly be dated as early as 125 AD, but the range of possible dates is more recent: 125-175 AD. All other fragments are more cent then 150 AD. We have evidence something in terms of early writing before ~150 AD, possibly simpler early writing like Q, but not named gospels as we have them by the fourth or fifth century. Clement nor Polycarp named the gospels.

[Sparko]

There is only one gospel fragment of John that may possibly be dated as early as 125 AD, but the range of possible dates is more recent: 125-175 AD. All other fragments are more cent then 150 AD. We have evidence something in terms of early writing before ~150 AD, possibly simpler early writing like Q, but not named gospels as we have them by the fourth or fifth century. Clement nor Polycarp named the gospels.

They quoted from the gospels. whole passages.

Polycarp was John's disciple. HE KNEW JOHN.

Paul quoted Luke's gospel. Paul's letter was written around 60ad.

Again, if you wish to claim that the gospels did not even exist in the first century or were not written by the 4 authors, you need to provide evidence. You have not done so. You are very good at avoiding doing so, but that isn't fooling anyone.

[Tassman]

And we know Luke was one of the last gospels to be written. John being the last. and we know that Luke traveled with Paul and wrote Acts and so we know that Luke is the author of the Gospel according to Luke.

[Sparko]

You realize what a textual variant is, right? Even a different spelling or change of word order is considered a variant.

If I had three copies that that said,

Tassman is a complete and utter moron.
Tssman is an utter and complete moron.
Tassman is a complete & utter moron.

I am pretty sure we could piece together what the original said with a high degree of accuracy.

And nice try at changing the subject. At first it was knowing the authors of the gospels, now you are saying we can't know what the originals said or if they existed?

You think all of those copies just popped up independently?

[shunyadragon]

You realize what a textual variant is, right? Even a different spelling or change of word order is considered a variant.

If I had three copies that that said,

Tassman is a complete and utter moron.
Tssman is an utter and complete moron.
Tassman is a complete & utter moron.

I am pretty sure we could piece together what the original said with a high degree of accuracy.

And nice try at changing the subject. At first it was knowing the authors of the gospels, now you are saying we can't know what the originals said or if they existed?

You think all of those copies just popped up independently?

When backed into a corner your last resort is name calling.

[Tassman]

You realize what a textual variant is, right? Even a different spelling or change of word order is considered a variant.

If I had three copies that that said,

Tassman is a complete and utter moron.
Tssman is an utter and complete moron.
Tassman is a complete & utter moron.

I am pretty sure we could piece together what the original said with a high degree of accuracy.

Oh Really!! MOST

[Sparko]

When backed into a corner your last resort is name calling.

Just using an example.

I notice your reply is no more than a personal attack either.

[Sparko]

Oh Really!! MOST

What does simply repeating your nonsense gain you? I already answered you on this.

No we don't have the originals. We have THOUSANDS of manuscript copies. They have variants in the text. Which don't matter because using textual criticism, we can easily reconstruct the original text. This is used not only for the bible, but for any historical documents. Look it up. The more copies you have to work with, the EASIER it is to reconstruct the original.

And your second quote?

According to Islamic-Awareness ...

Well, let us see what Ralph Earle writing in "The Rational For An Eclectic New Testament Text" in The NIV: The Making Of A Contemporary Translation says:

What Greek text was used by the translators of the NIV New Testament? It was basically that found in the United Bible Societies' and Nestle's printed Greek New Testament which contain the latest and best Greek text available.

In many passage there is no way of being absolutely certain as to what was the original reading because the best Greek manuscripts, both earlier and later ones, have variant readings. In such cases the translators were asked to weigh the evidence carefully and make their own decision. Of course, such decision was subject to reexamination by the Committee on Bible Translation. In the UBS text, the adopted readings are marked with an A, B, C, or D. Those marked "A" are virtually certain, "B" less certain, "C" doubtful and "D" high doubtful. It is the last, especially, that have to be weighed carefully. https://www.islamic-awareness.org/bi...ivorigins.html

Y'all might want to check the accuracy of your sources before using them in an argument about accuracy of the bible. Just sayin. If it is from an islamic apologetics site, you can be sure it is innaccurate or incomplete.

[Cow Poke]

What does simply repeating your nonsense gain you?

It's like Tass has a number of responses that he just cuts-n-pastes, over and over and over....

[Tassman]

What does simply repeating your nonsense gain you? I already answered you on this.

No we don't have the originals. We have THOUSANDS of manuscript copies. They have variants in the text. Which don't matter because using textual criticism, we can easily reconstruct the original text. This is used not only for the bible, but for any historical documents. Look it up. The more copies you have to work with, the EASIER it is to reconstruct the original.

Well, let us see what Ralph Earle writing in "The Rational For An Eclectic New Testament Text" in The NIV: The Making Of A Contemporary Translation says:

What Greek text was used by the translators of the NIV New Testament? It was basically that found in the United Bible Societies' and Nestle's printed Greek New Testament which contain the latest and best Greek text available.

In many passage there is no way of being absolutely certain as to what was the original reading because the best Greek manuscripts, both earlier and later ones, have variant readings. In such cases the translators were asked to weigh the evidence carefully and make their own decision. Of course, such decision was subject to reexamination by the Committee on Bible Translation. In the UBS text, the adopted readings are marked with an A, B, C, or D. Those marked "A" are virtually certain, "B" less certain, "C" doubtful and "D" high doubtful. It is the last, especially, that have to be weighed carefully.

https://www.biblegateway.com/version...ion-NIV-Bible/