Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Could God reincarnate humans if he wanted to?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    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.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      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.
      Only apologist "scholars", I hazard a guess. I suggest that you favour them on the basis of confirmation bias.

      The biblical scholars i named, i.e. Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Bruce Metzger, Allen Paul Wikgren and Carlo Maria Martini were universally respected as some of the greatest biblical scholars. E.g. "Bruce Metzger (February 9, 1914 – February 13, 2007) was an American biblical scholar, Bible translator and textual critic who was a longtime professor at Princeton Theological Seminary and Bible editor who served on the board of the American Bible Society and United Bible Societies. He was a scholar of Greek, New Testament, and New Testament textual criticism, and wrote prolifically on these subjects. Metzger is one of the most influential New Testament scholars of the 20th century." cited Wiki

      And with the best will in the world, they had to contend with textual variants in ALL the texts. None of the texts could be thought of as the original texts, such texts no longer exist."
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        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.

        Comment


        • 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)

          For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”


          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

          Source: The Canon of Scripture


          Someone might object that Paul could be quoting an oral tradition of Jesus’ words rather than Luke’s gospel, but it is doubtful that Paul would call any oral tradition “Scripture,” since the word (Gk. grafh/, G1210, “writing”) is always in New Testament usage applied to written texts, and since Paul’s close association with Luke makes it very possible that he would quote Luke’s written gospel.

          © Copyright Original Source



          And note that Paul is quoting Luke here on the same level as Moses and calling both Scripture.
          Last edited by rogue06; 06-22-2018, 10:13 AM.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            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)

            For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”


            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

            Source: The Canon of Scripture


            Someone might object that Paul could be quoting an oral tradition of Jesus’ words rather than Luke’s gospel, but it is doubtful that Paul would call any oral tradition “Scripture,” since the word (Gk. grafh/, G1210, “writing”) is always in New Testament usage applied to written texts, and since Paul’s close association with Luke makes it very possible that he would quote Luke’s written gospel.

            © Copyright Original Source



            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.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              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.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                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.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  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.
                  We also know the view of the experts who had access to the best available texts of the NT and used them as the basis of the Bible Society’s NIV translation. “The New International Version (NIV) is a completely original translation of the Bible developed by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.” - Bible Gateway.

                  They found that ALL the NT texts had textual variants. ALL of them! None of the texts could be thought of as the original texts, such texts no longer exist.
                  Last edited by Tassman; 06-23-2018, 12:23 AM.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    We also know the view of the experts who had access to the best available texts of the NT and used them as the basis of the Bible Society’s NIV translation. “The New International Version (NIV) is a completely original translation of the Bible developed by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.” - Bible Gateway.

                    They found that ALL the NT texts had textual variants. ALL of them! None of the texts could be thought of as the original texts, such texts no longer exist.
                    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?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      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.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        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!!

                        Once again, “The New International Version (NIV) is a completely original translation of the Bible developed by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.” - Bible Gateway. MOST of the NT texts had textual variants and none of the texts could be thought of as the original texts, such texts no longer exist. And nor were the variants minor in many instances.

                        “In many passage there is no way of being 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." K. L. Barker PhD, (ed.) ‘The NIV: The Making Of A Contemporary Translation’.

                        KL Barker: Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, is an author, lecturer, biblical scholar, and the general editor of the NIV Study Bible.
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post




                            Oh Really!!

                            Once again, “The New International Version (NIV) is a completely original translation of the Bible developed by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.” - Bible Gateway. MOST of the NT texts had textual variants and none of the texts could be thought of as the original texts, such texts no longer exist. And nor were the variants minor in many instances.

                            “In many passage there is no way of being 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." K. L. Barker PhD, (ed.) ‘The NIV: The Making Of A Contemporary Translation’.

                            KL Barker: Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, is an author, lecturer, biblical scholar, and the general editor of the NIV Study Bible.
                            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.
                            Last edited by Sparko; 06-26-2018, 09:52 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              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....
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                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.
                                You are merely repeating your same bald assertion.

                                Once again, of the "THOUSANDS of manuscript copies" there is no way of being certain of what was the original reading because the best Greek manuscripts, both earlier and later ones, have variant readings” the reliability of which were estimated by the more than 100 members of the UBS translation committee by voting on their perceived reliability ranging from A to D. This from K. L. Barker PhD, (ed.) ‘The NIV: The Making Of A Contemporary Translation’.

                                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.
                                Ralph Earle is quoting K. L. Barker (ed.), "The NIV: The Making Of A Contemporary Translation", Paperback – 1986, PP 58-59. Your point?

                                Let me remind you that "The New International Version (NIV) is a completely original translation of the Bible developed by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts".

                                https://www.biblegateway.com/version...ion-NIV-Bible/
                                Last edited by Tassman; 06-27-2018, 01:04 AM.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                38 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                422 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X