Could God reincarnate humans if he wanted to?

[shunyadragon]

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

Good references!!

[Sparko]

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.

[Sparko]

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:

[One Bad Pig]

[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).

[Sparko]

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).

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

[shunyadragon]

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:

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.

[Sparko]

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.

[One Bad Pig]

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."

[shunyadragon]

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.

[Tassman]

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.

https://www.thenivbible.com/textual-basis/https://archive.org/stream/BruceMetz...ge/n0/mode/2up

[Sparko]

https://www.thenivbible.com/textual-basis/https://archive.org/stream/BruceMetz...ge/n0/mode/2up

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.

[Tassman]

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.