Interesting. I will be very brief. I'd like you to finish your thought.
However, for you to explain how there are inaccuracies in the texts and then proclaim "the texts are reliable" is quite a leap. Would that we were playing "telephone" or simply discussing the veracity of a children's limerick I wouldn't quibble. Unfortunately, we're discussing a book known as "THE WORD OF GOD". These are words, sentences, and paragraphs that people kill over, die for, and hang there very life upon.
Your first post, which dated the manuscripts the NT is actually based upon, dates the "original copies" (for lack of a better description) in the 200-300 A.D. range. Well, that's a bit after the crucifixion. To think the only transcriptional errors or additions in almost 200 years would be semantic is indeed a generous orthodoxy. Especially considering who those scribes were. But I shan't jump ahead.
More than the linguistic errors (which are plentiful, obvious, and far more than mere pronouns and verb tense which you seem to limit them to) there are flat out discrepancies in the four Gospels. Not minor discrepancies either. These are factual "errors". Perhaps one of them is factually true. Unfortunately, that would mandate the others are factually not true.
I'd like to go more deeply into what I mean, but I fear I'm already being rude.... the floor is yours and I won't jump in again until invited.
JE
PS- I probably will jump in again, invited or not. I'm a terrible person!
No comments:
Post a Comment