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 Tassman View Post
    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’.



    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/
    Good references!!
    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 Tassman View Post
      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’.



      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/
      Your link doesn't say what you think it does. It is from a book that is talking about how reliable the NIV translation IS because of having so many manuscript copies and being able to retranslate from those copies using textual criticism instead of translating a translation. You use a muslim source that takes a few sentences out of context and think that proves something?

      The variants are minor changes in the text not affecting the context or overall meaning of the text.

      But please, continue to misuse out of context quotes to repeat your nonsense. All you are doing is making yourself look ignorant.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Good references!!
        did you bother to even click on the link he gave? Here is the text to save you the problem. It is talking about how reliable the NIV is, not what Tassman is claiming:


        Version Information

        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.

        The initial vision for the project was provided by a single individual – an engineer working with General Electric in Seattle by the name of Howard Long. Long was a lifelong devotee of the King James Version, but when he shared it with his friends he was distressed to find that it just didn’t connect. Long saw the need for a translation that captured the truths he loved in the language that his contemporaries spoke.

        For 10 years, Long and a growing group of like-minded supporters drove this idea. The passion of one man became the passion of a church, and ultimately the passion of a whole group of denominations. And finally, in 1965, after several years of preparatory study, a trans-denominational and international group of scholars met in Palos Heights, Illinois, and agreed to begin work on the project – determining to not simply adapt an existing English version of the Bible but to start from scratch with the best available manuscripts in the original languages. Their conclusion was endorsed by a large number of church leaders who met in Chicago in 1966.

        A self-governing body of fifteen biblical scholars, the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) was formed and charged with responsibility for the version, and in 1968 the New York Bible Society (which subsequently became the International Bible Society and then Biblica) generously undertook the financial sponsorship of the project. The translation of each book was assigned to translation teams, each made up of two lead translators, two translation consultants, and a stylistic consultant where necessary. The initial translations produced by these teams were carefully scrutinized and revised by intermediate editorial committees of five biblical scholars to check them against the source texts and assess them for comprehensibility. Each edited text was then submitted to a general committee of eight to twelve members before being distributed to selected outside critics and to all members of the CBT in preparation for a final review. Samples of the translation were tested for clarity and ease of reading with pastors, students, scholars, and lay people across the full breadth of the intended audience. Perhaps no other translation has undergone a more thorough process of review and revision. From the very start, the NIV sought to bring modern Bible readers as close as possible to the experience of the very first Bible readers: providing the best possible blend of transparency to the original documents and comprehension of the original meaning in every verse. With this clarity of focus, however, came the realization that the work of translating the NIV would never be truly complete. As new discoveries were made about the biblical world and its languages, and as the norms of English usage developed and changed over time, the NIV would also need to change to hold true to its original vision.

        And so in the original NIV charter, provision was made not just to issue periodic updates to the text but also to create a mechanism for constant monitoring of changes in biblical scholarship and English usage. The CBT was charged to meet every year to review, maintain, and strengthen the NIV’s ability to accurately and faithfully render God’s unchanging Word in modern English.

        The 2011 update to the NIV is the latest fruit of this process. By working with input from pastors and Bible scholars, by grappling with the latest discoveries about biblical languages and the biblical world, and by using cutting-edge research on English usage, the Committee on Bible Translation has updated the text to ensure that the New International Version of the Bible remains faithful to Howard Long’s original inspiration.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          [Polycarp and Clement] quoted from the gospels. whole passages.
          No, not as such. They alluded to several gospel texts, but generally did not quote verbatim (see, e.g., The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature Before Saint Irenaeus: The First Ecclesiastical Writers by Edouard Massaux - despite the title, he actually covers all of the NT).
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            No, not as such. They alluded to several gospel texts, but generally did not quote verbatim (see, e.g., The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature Before Saint Irenaeus: The First Ecclesiastical Writers by Edouard Massaux - despite the title, he actually covers all of the NT).
            Here is what I posted in another thread that I found:

            Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes Matthew 18:6 (also Mark 9:42) as by the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Clement ch.46 p.17-18

            Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians ch.2 p.33 (110-155 A.D.) quotes all of Matthew 7:1 "but be mindful of what the Lord said in His teaching: ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged;"

            Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes Mark 7:6 1 (Also Matthew 15:8; Isaiah 29:13) 1 Clement ch.15 vol.1 p.9

            Polycarp (100-155 A.D.) quotes Luke 6:36 Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians ch.2 p.33

            Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes 1/4 of Acts 20:35f (5 words out of 26 words) 1 Clement vol.1 ch.2 p.5

            Polycarp (100-155 A.D.) quotes half of Acts 2:24a (7 out of 15 Greek words) Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians ch.1 p.33


            https://www.biblequery.org/Bible/Bib...eferences.html

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              did you bother to even click on the link he gave? Here is the text to save you the problem. It is talking about how reliable the NIV is, not what Tassman is claiming:


              Version Information

              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.

              The initial vision for the project was provided by a single individual – an engineer working with General Electric in Seattle by the name of Howard Long. Long was a lifelong devotee of the King James Version, but when he shared it with his friends he was distressed to find that it just didn’t connect. Long saw the need for a translation that captured the truths he loved in the language that his contemporaries spoke.

              For 10 years, Long and a growing group of like-minded supporters drove this idea. The passion of one man became the passion of a church, and ultimately the passion of a whole group of denominations. And finally, in 1965, after several years of preparatory study, a trans-denominational and international group of scholars met in Palos Heights, Illinois, and agreed to begin work on the project – determining to not simply adapt an existing English version of the Bible but to start from scratch with the best available manuscripts in the original languages. Their conclusion was endorsed by a large number of church leaders who met in Chicago in 1966.

              A self-governing body of fifteen biblical scholars, the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) was formed and charged with responsibility for the version, and in 1968 the New York Bible Society (which subsequently became the International Bible Society and then Biblica) generously undertook the financial sponsorship of the project. The translation of each book was assigned to translation teams, each made up of two lead translators, two translation consultants, and a stylistic consultant where necessary. The initial translations produced by these teams were carefully scrutinized and revised by intermediate editorial committees of five biblical scholars to check them against the source texts and assess them for comprehensibility. Each edited text was then submitted to a general committee of eight to twelve members before being distributed to selected outside critics and to all members of the CBT in preparation for a final review. Samples of the translation were tested for clarity and ease of reading with pastors, students, scholars, and lay people across the full breadth of the intended audience. Perhaps no other translation has undergone a more thorough process of review and revision. From the very start, the NIV sought to bring modern Bible readers as close as possible to the experience of the very first Bible readers: providing the best possible blend of transparency to the original documents and comprehension of the original meaning in every verse. With this clarity of focus, however, came the realization that the work of translating the NIV would never be truly complete. As new discoveries were made about the biblical world and its languages, and as the norms of English usage developed and changed over time, the NIV would also need to change to hold true to its original vision.

              And so in the original NIV charter, provision was made not just to issue periodic updates to the text but also to create a mechanism for constant monitoring of changes in biblical scholarship and English usage. The CBT was charged to meet every year to review, maintain, and strengthen the NIV’s ability to accurately and faithfully render God’s unchanging Word in modern English.

              The 2011 update to the NIV is the latest fruit of this process. By working with input from pastors and Bible scholars, by grappling with the latest discoveries about biblical languages and the biblical world, and by using cutting-edge research on English usage, the Committee on Bible Translation has updated the text to ensure that the New International Version of the Bible remains faithful to Howard Long’s original inspiration.
              I am very famoliar with the whole document, and you missed the point. Despite their sincere efforts to come up with most comprehensive resolution of the different early texts they CANNOT go back before ~150 - 200 AD to absolutely any first author 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
                I am very famoliar with the whole document, and you missed the point. Despite their sincere efforts to come up with most comprehensive resolution of the different early texts they CANNOT go back before ~150 - 200 AD to absolutely any first author gospels.
                that doesn't mean they can't reconstruct what the originals said with near perfect accuracy. The more manuscripts they have to compare the better the accuracy.

                And it still doesn't support your claim that the 4 authors are not the actual authors of the gospels.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Here is what I posted in another thread that I found:

                  Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes Matthew 18:6 (also Mark 9:42) as by the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Clement ch.46 p.17-18

                  Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians ch.2 p.33 (110-155 A.D.) quotes all of Matthew 7:1 "but be mindful of what the Lord said in His teaching: ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged;"

                  Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes Mark 7:6 1 (Also Matthew 15:8; Isaiah 29:13) 1 Clement ch.15 vol.1 p.9

                  Polycarp (100-155 A.D.) quotes Luke 6:36 Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians ch.2 p.33

                  Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes 1/4 of Acts 20:35f (5 words out of 26 words) 1 Clement vol.1 ch.2 p.5

                  Polycarp (100-155 A.D.) quotes half of Acts 2:24a (7 out of 15 Greek words) Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians ch.1 p.33


                  https://www.biblequery.org/Bible/Bib...eferences.html
                  Yeah, more or less what I said. Any verbatim quotations are generally quite short - so much so that it can be difficult to say which synoptic gospel is being quoted. Your source is stretching things when it calls 5 out of 26 words a "quote."
                  Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                  Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                  sigpic
                  I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    that doesn't mean they can't reconstruct what the originals said with near perfect accuracy. The more manuscripts they have to compare the better the accuracy.

                    And it still doesn't support your claim that the 4 authors are not the actual authors of the gospels.
                    They di not claim to do this.
                    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
                      Your link doesn't say what you think it does. It is from a book that is talking about how reliable the NIV translation IS because of having so many manuscript copies and being able to retranslate from those copies using textual criticism instead of translating a translation. You use a muslim source that takes a few sentences out of context and think that proves something?

                      The variants are minor changes in the text not affecting the context or overall meaning of the text.
                      Once again “The Greek text used in translating the New Testament has been an eclectic one, based on the latest editions of the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. The translators have made their choices among the variant readings in accordance with widely accepted principles of New Testament textual criticism. Footnotes call attention to places where uncertainty remains.”

                      https://www.thenivbible.com/textual-basis/

                      As well Bruce Metzger, another of the distinguished translators of the NIV, makes the same point under the heading of “Variant readings among the manuscripts”.

                      https://archive.org/stream/BruceMetz...ge/n0/mode/2up

                      And, to repeat, 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’.

                      None of this speaks to any reliable “original texts”.
                      “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
                        Once again “The Greek text used in translating the New Testament has been an eclectic one, based on the latest editions of the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. The translators have made their choices among the variant readings in accordance with widely accepted principles of New Testament textual criticism. Footnotes call attention to places where uncertainty remains.”

                        https://www.thenivbible.com/textual-basis/

                        As well Bruce Metzger, another of the distinguished translators of the NIV, makes the same point under the heading of “Variant readings among the manuscripts”.

                        https://archive.org/stream/BruceMetz...ge/n0/mode/2up

                        And, to repeat, 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’.

                        None of this speaks to any reliable “original texts”.
                        repeating it again doesn't make your point true.

                        most variants are not significant to the meaning of the verse. It is just an alternate spelling, a misspelling of change of word order. Having so many manuscripts to compare makes it easy to correct most of these variants.

                        From your favorite source:

                        Textual variants in the New Testament are the subject of the study called textual criticism of the New Testament. Textual variants in manuscripts arise when a copyist makes deliberate or inadvertent alterations to a text that is being reproduced. Most of the variations are not significant and some common alterations include the deletion, rearrangement, repetition, or replacement of one or more words when the copyist's eye returns to a similar word in the wrong location of the original text. If their eye skips to an earlier word, they may create a repetition (error of dittography). If their eye skips to a later word, they may create an omission. They may resort to performing a rearranging of words to retain the overall meaning without compromising the context. In other instances, the copyist may add text from memory from a similar or parallel text in another location. Otherwise, they may also replace some text of the original with an alternative reading. Spellings occasionally change. Synonyms may be substituted. A pronoun may be changed into a proper noun (such as "he said" becoming "Jesus said").
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textua..._New_Testament


                        I eagerly await your repeat of your nonsense again.
                        Last edited by Sparko; 06-28-2018, 08:54 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          repeating it again doesn't make your point true.

                          most variants are not significant to the meaning of the verse. It is just an alternate spelling, a misspelling of change of word order. Having so many manuscripts to compare makes it easy to correct most of these variants.
                          I believe I've dealt with this sufficiently. Yes many of the textual variations are not significant, e.g. the variant texts the NIV translators labelled 'A' or ‘B’. However the letter ‘C’ meant that there was a considerable degree of doubt whether the texts contained an accurate rendition, whilst ‘D ‘showed that there is a very high degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text.
                          “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
                          14 responses
                          42 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post tabibito  
                          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
                          78 responses
                          411 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