Bible Problem

crossnote said:
Good points but the E.O. and R.O. have their mix of paganism as well. What percentage of the 20,000 Polish Catholic Calvary do you suppose was born again?
Click to expand...
Good points. Yes good points indeed considering how Europe would have looked under the veil of Islam if our holy knights of valour had not won the day. And we not be enjoying our wkly treat of croissants too 🥐 : ) 4D131E71-53CA-4923-933E-5587972955D0.jpeg631D103E-96DC-40C7-9F62-E99182A056FB.jpeg How many of those 20,000 knights were Christians. According to the Muslims all. According to the God that be known only unto him.
 
netchaplain said:
The scholars Crissip Lake with Dean John William Burgon "contended that there once were many ancient manuscripts containing the Byzantine text, manuscripts much older than B (Vaticanus) and Aleph (Sinaiticus).
Click to expand...
Yeah, I am aware of the claims. But again, where is the objective evidence? There is none.

netchaplain said:
But they were read so constantly and copied so frequently that finally they wore out and perished (which is why there are no extant autographs of the original writers, which others might worship) . . . the reason why B and Aleph survived to the present day is because they were rejected by the Greek Church as faulty and so not used. They should have experienced the same fate that most other ancient manuscripts encountered."
Click to expand...
And there are the same ad hoc claims, false dilemma fallacy, question begging, and circular arguments again.

Your circular arguments:
(1) "The reason there are no manuscripts is because they were used so much they wore out."

How do you know that?

"Because we have no manuscripts from that time, therefore they must have all wore out."

How do you know that?
"Because we don't have any."

So you are trying to prove that something existed and the proof is, it must have existed since there is no verifiable physical evidence for its existence.

Oh how convenient that is.


(2) "B and Aleph survived because they were no used."

How do you know that?

"Because all the manuscripts the Church used all wore out.

What is the evidence they all wore out?

"Because we have no manuscripts from that time, therefore they must have all wore out."

How do you know that?

"Because we don't have any."

So again you are trying to prove that something existed and the proof is, it must have existed since there is no verifiable physical evidence for its existence.
 
Last edited:
Origen said:
Yeah, I am aware of the claims. But again, where is the objective evidence? There is none.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "objective evidence"?
Origen said:
And there are the same ad hoc claims, false dilemma fallacy, question begging, and circular arguments again.

Your circular arguments:
(1) "The reason there are no manuscripts is because they were used so much they wore out."

How do you know that?

"Because we have no manuscripts from that time, therefore they must have all wore out."

How do you know that?
"Because we don't have any."
Click to expand...
All the manuscript copies that wore out were copied over and over before they wore out! The scribe would destroy a worn out manuscript after copying the exemplar, to avoid misuse of the manuscript.
 
netchaplain said:
What do you mean by "objective evidence"?
Click to expand...
In this case it means NOT personal opinion. Your quotes are nothing but the opinions of your sources. Neither you, or they apparently, provide
concrete verifiable evidence and without THAT their opinions are worthless. Thus their claims are reduced to nothing than examples of the appeal to authority fallacy.

netchaplain said:
All the manuscript copies that wore out were copied over and over before they wore out! The scribe would destroy a worn out manuscript after copying the exemplar, to avoid misuse of the manuscript.
Click to expand...
Once again no evidence to back up that claim and it is the same circular argument. You can cite no early primary source for verifiable for this claim. I am sorry but it simply does not exist.

So either you have hard evidence that anyone check to see for themselves in order to verifiable these claims of yours or you don't? As I pointed out above, the opinions of your sources without verifiable evidence is nothing more than the appeal to authority fallacy.

I deal in facts, hard verifiable evidence, not mere opinions. The opinion of others, scholars or not, carry no weight without supporting evidence that can be examined, tested, and consequently verified.

Theories and hypotheses are only as good as the verifiable evidence used to supports them. Without that is it pure speculation at best, nothing more.
 
Last edited:
Origen said:
In this case it means NOT personal opinion. Your quotes are nothing but the opinions of your sources. Neither you, or they apparently, provide
concrete verifiable evidence and without THAT their opinions are worthless. Thus their claims are reduced to nothing than examples of the appeal to authority fallacy.


Once again no evidence to back up that claim and it is the same circular argument. You can cite no early primary source for verifiable for this claim. I am sorry but it simply does not exist.

So either you have hard evidence that anyone check to see for themselves in order to verifiable these claims of yours or you don't? As I pointed out above, the opinions of your sources without verifiable evidence is nothing more than the appeal to authority fallacy.

I deal in facts, hard verifiable evidence, not mere opinions. The opinion of others, scholars or not, carry no weight without supporting evidence that can be examined, tested, and consequently verified.

Theories and hypotheses are only as good as the verifiable evidence used to supports them. Without that is it pure speculation at best, nothing more.
Click to expand...
It's common knowledge among most scholars that the reason why there are no extant original autographs of the writers of Scripture is due to manuscripts waring out from usage, because they were used excessively. It's also common knowledge that unused manuscripts did not ware out due to not using them for anything; that's why they sat idle for 1500 years.
 
netchaplain said:
It's common knowledge among most scholars that the reason why there are no extant original autographs of the writers of Scripture is due to manuscripts waring out from usage, because they were used excessively. It's also common knowledge that unused manuscripts did not ware out due to not using them for anything; that's why they sat idle for 1500 years.
Click to expand...
It is common knowledge among all bonifide scholars that primary sources are preferred over secondary sources because secondary sources are subject to author bias. Logical fallacies, of which I've seen many from you, will never prove an argument because they can't be taken seriously. My advice is for you to stop using Burgeon and other biased secondary sources, and instead, apply yourself to studying the biblical language sources for yourself. You'll be surprised at the number of helps available today for assisting persons not trained in biblical languages. Do your own research to form your own opinions and stop repeating the opinions of biased writers.
 
BibleLover said:
It is common knowledge among all bonifide scholars that primary sources are preferred over secondary sources because secondary sources are subject to author bias. Logical fallacies, of which I've seen many from you, will never prove an argument because they can't be taken seriously. My advice is for you to stop using Burgeon and other biased secondary sources, and instead, apply yourself to studying the biblical language sources for yourself. You'll be surprised at the number of helps available today for assisting persons not trained in biblical languages. Do your own research to form your own opinions and stop repeating the opinions of biased writers.
Click to expand...
Thanks, but I prefer to use the most instructive information for the deepest truth that most will not seek; many if not most are just casual Christians, who will be under the eternal tutorage of those in authority over them!
 
BibleLover said:
It is common knowledge among all bonifide scholars that primary sources are preferred over secondary sources because secondary sources are subject to author bias. Logical fallacies, of which I've seen many from you, will never prove an argument because they can't be taken seriously. My advice is for you to stop using Burgeon and other biased secondary sources, and instead, apply yourself to studying the biblical language sources for yourself. You'll be surprised at the number of helps available today for assisting persons not trained in biblical languages. Do your own research to form your own opinions and stop repeating the opinions of biased writers.
Click to expand...
You say. Do your own research to form your own opinions and stop repeating the opinions of biased writers. Well by the opinions of biased writers does that also include the biased writings of Westcott & Hort the biased writings of Tieshendorf or the biased writings of James White. Or is that only reserved for biased writers like Dean Burgon or anyone who defends the authorised version? Bible lover the reality is everyone has a bias. Even if Netch went and studied Hebrew & Greek he would still have a bias. You have your bias I have my bias Origen has his bias on the facts he perceives . And that’s just fine . But the moment we start telling people what they can’t and can read to evaluate truth than you may as well say that the bible no longer belongs to the church. It now belongs only to a scholarly priesthood who’ll decide what we read and believe.
 
STAFF NOTE for ALL thread participants:

Please keep personal criticisms aimed at other members at ANY level out of the CFS Forum.

Thank you for your cooperation.



`
 
netchaplain said:
It's common knowledge among most scholars that the reason why there are no extant original autographs of the writers of Scripture is due to manuscripts waring out from usage, because they were used excessively. It's also common knowledge that unused manuscripts did not ware out due to not using them for anything; that's why they sat idle for 1500 years.
Click to expand...
Sorry but is just another opinion lacking any verifiable proof. It also commits the fallacy of ad populum. Even if most scholars did agree, which I very much doubt, the truth of a matter is not decided by counting noses. The truth of a matter is determined by means of verifiable evidence, not by pointing to something that does not exist.

I understand you have sources you agree with and that is fine. However the fact that you and they seemingly hold the same views is not proof of anything except you hold the same views as them.

Imagine this!
Prosecuting attorney:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury we know the defendant is guilty because there is no evidence. And the reason there is no evidence is because it must have disposed of my the defendant. There is no other way to explain the complete lack of evidence against the defendant. Therefore the defendant must be guilty because our total lack of evidence is all the proof we need.
 
Last edited:
I would have made a very poor scribe.😉 Sorry, the above (post 180) should read:

Prosecuting attorney:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury we know the defendant is guilty because there is no evidence. And the reason there is no evidence is because the defendant himself must have been disposed of all the evidence. There is no other way to explain the complete lack of evidence against him. Therefore the defendant must be guilty because of our total lack of evidence against him, and that is all the proof we need.
 
Last edited:
Origen said:
Sorry but is just another opinion lacking any verifiable proof. It also commits the fallacy of ad populum. Even if most scholars did agree, which I very much doubt, the truth of a matter is not decided by counting noses. The truth of a matter is determined by means of verifiable evidence, not by pointing to something that does not exist.

I understand you have sources you agree with and that is fine. However the fact that you and they seemingly hold the same views is not proof of anything except you hold the same views as them.

Imagine this!
Prosecuting attorney:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury we know the defendant is guilty because there is no evidence. And the reason there is no evidence is because it must have disposed of my the defendant. There is no other way to explain the complete lack of evidence against the defendant. Therefore the defendant must be guilty because our total lack of evidence is all the proof we need.
Click to expand...
That's ok, but wish you could see the truth about this issue. God bless!
 
forgiven61 said:
do we need this to live the life we are supposed to live? IN Christ
Click to expand...
No, not at all, but if you're going to presume to teach others about the veracity of Bible translations, then you need to know what you're talking about and not rely on second hand opinions which may or may not be dishonest or biased. If you trust your Bible, you can become Christlike without knowing the original languages.
 
read your all's post carefully i understand i prefer kjv once in while nkjv it only changes a few words . imo the Big issue at hand those of you who know greek /hebrew . but how do we know what the original script read before being translated . i have my bible and i trust it yes i look up word meanings and kjv causes me to try understand words and what the writer was implying . but there again i am trusting in what man who has studied has to say..
some will say never look at others writings. i have certain commentators i do trust. the argument will be the Holy Spirit will teach us.. very true but teh Holy spirit has taught other men to also teach us. we should have discernment when studying
 
forgiven61 said:
read your all's post carefully i understand i prefer kjv once in while nkjv it only changes a few words . imo the Big issue at hand those of you who know greek /hebrew . but how do we know what the original script read before being translated . i have my bible and i trust it yes i look up word meanings and kjv causes me to try understand words and what the writer was implying . but there again i am trusting in what man who has studied has to say..
some will say never look at others writings. i have certain commentators i do trust. the argument will be the Holy Spirit will teach us.. very true but teh Holy spirit has taught other men to also teach us. we should have discernment when studying
Click to expand...
The truth is the Greek text of the New Testament is remarkably stable. The vast majority of it across all text types and Greek platforms is essentially the same. Some variants are indeed important, however they are but a small minority. However the majority of variants are not very important, (i.e. spelling differences and something call the movable nu). Therefore, given the fact that vast majority of the New Testament is stable, for the most part, I don't think you should worry at all.

As I pointed out in post 140:
You should read any translation you like and enjoy, the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NIV, NASB, CSB, NLT, etc.

The majority of N.T. manuscripts of any sizes have variants. This is just a fact that believers have to confront. I have been doing this since the fall of 1983 when I first stated college. Since that time I have studied\looked at numerous variants, manuscripts, and Greek texts. It has NOT diminished my faith in the slightest degree. So don't worry. You can have confidence in your Bible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top