Linguists, scholars and the NT

  • Thread starter Thread starter roelblomsma
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nathan_Wagar said:
This is not a solid basis for an argument that flies against nearly every single NT scholar and linguist on this matter.
Click to expand...
The article has more to do with mathematical probabilities than providing any solid basis. If you want to believe heads came up in every coin toss the Greeks had ever made, that’s your right. One should know that when there are multiple witnesses to any event, there’s a good chance you’re going to hear inconsistent details. And even the same details in a different chronological order can lead to confusion. How many history books on World War II have been written and how many of them agree 100%? And how well can you remember events many years in the past? Yet you expect every document of 1800-1900 years ago to be 100% accurate?
 
ProVobis said:
The article has more to do with mathematical probabilities than providing any solid basis. If you want to believe heads came up in every coin toss the Greeks had ever made, that’s your right. One should know that when there are multiple witnesses to any event, there’s a good chance you’re going to hear inconsistent details. And even the same details in a different chronological order can lead to confusion. How many history books on World War II have been written and how many of them agree 100%? And how well can you remember events many years in the past? Yet you expect every document of 1800-1900 years ago to be 100% accurate?
Click to expand...
Im not sure what you are actually saying or responding to? Perhaps you would deal with any one of the points I made? Textual reliability is not a topic I even touched upon so perhaps you could re-read my post?
 
Nathan_Wagar said:
Im not sure what you are actually saying or responding to? Perhaps you would deal with any one of the points I made? Textual reliability is not a topic I even touched upon so perhaps you could re-read my post?
Click to expand...
Actually, Nathan I thought ProVobis was agreeing with you about the article and adding an additional observation.
 
That’s entirely possible. I just want to be clear on his position, it’s never good to argue just to argue.
 
Nathan_Wagar said:
Perhaps I should clarify. I don’t mean original in the sense of inspired originals. I mean original in the sense of the original copies that we currently have (as opposed to a translation, etc). It’s irrelevant when it was written, since the widespread myth is that it does not say on the actual manuscripts who it was written by. Whether the name was written by the disciples themselves or by the later Church is up for debate, but ultimately irrelevant, since that is not the claim I am dealing with. The comment about the dead sea scrolls was an analogy, so Im not sure what your point is there.

Yes I have read the King David article, it was a good read 🙂
Click to expand...
Thanks for responding, appreciate it.

I’m not sure I understand your point about the “widespread myth.” Is there a widespread myth you are referring to that the Catholic Church refutes? Thanks for any clarification.
 
If I understood Nathan, he is asserting (based on someone else’s teaching) that the manuscript was signed or otherwise asserted authorship.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top