King james was gay!

[DriftingSand]

How do you know if you never saw the original?

Are you this ignorant about the history of scripture and the dates ascribed to each of the books within it? When they were written?
Really?
Honestly?
Avatar stopped this line of questioning because it had become an embarrassing mistake.
How long will it take for you to understand you are making a complete fool of yourself?

Actually, I stopped asking because I have a life outside this message board and because you clearly don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying. So what's the point? Why complain about not having originals if you can't even have a way to tell they are originals?

Not only that, but I've never had an "original" Hemingway but that doesn't stop me from appreciating his writings.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I don't accept one word you say.

Here is an untruth you posted.

"We know absolutely that stories got added to scripture by scribes. "

How do we "know absolutely?"

were you there? Do you have photographic proof? Video? Fingerprints? No, you have what someone wrote. And when did they make their assertion? Hundreds, thousands of years later, based on what they read about that perriod, which was written by someone else who studied that period.

We DO NOT know absolutely.

We have theories. And manuscript theory and textual criticism shows us that the available manuscripts are reliable.

No, we KNOW.
The earliest manuscripts leave out stories that later ones have. Complete early manuscripts leave out the story of Jesus saying "Let he without sin...". It doesn't exist in the earliest manuscripts we have. It appears later.
The Harper Collins Study Bible is the most used bible in mainstream seminaries across the country. It has notes regarding the issue saying it can't be verified as authentic. The Oxford Study Bible goes the next step and leaves the story out, claiming it to be unreliable.
You haven't studied shit.

Yes, I have. I studied Textual Criticism for 9 years. And I have read more books on the subject than you have ever dreamed about. Go back to your hole and read some more wikipedia.

No response.
Got it.
You're a fraud.

 

[Smilebong]

No, we KNOW.
The earliest manuscripts leave out stories that later ones have. Complete early manuscripts leave out the story of Jesus saying "Let he without sin...". It doesn't exist in the earliest manuscripts we have. It appears later.
The Harper Collins Study Bible is the most used bible in mainstream seminaries across the country. It has notes regarding the issue saying it can't be verified as authentic. The Oxford Study Bible goes the next step and leaves the story out, claiming it to be unreliable.
You haven't studied shit.

Yes, I have. I studied Textual Criticism for 9 years. And I have read more books on the subject than you have ever dreamed about. Go back to your hole and read some more wikipedia.

No response.
Got it.
You're a fraud.

Ok then. You do not understand textual criticism. You copy and paste well, though.

 

[thebrucebeat]

How do you know if you never saw the original?

Are you this ignorant about the history of scripture and the dates ascribed to each of the books within it? When they were written?
Really?
Honestly?
Avatar stopped this line of questioning because it had become an embarrassing mistake.
How long will it take for you to understand you are making a complete fool of yourself?

Actually, I stopped asking because I have a life outside this message board and because you clearly don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying. So what's the point? Why complain about not having originals if you can't even have a way to tell they are originals?

I TOLD YOU HOW THEY KNOW!!! wHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?????

 

[thebrucebeat]

Yes, I have. I studied Textual Criticism for 9 years. And I have read more books on the subject than you have ever dreamed about. Go back to your hole and read some more wikipedia.

No response.
Got it.
You're a fraud.

Ok then. You do not understand textual criticism. You copy and paste well, though.

Avoidance is not argument.
Running away is probably your best choice.

 

[Smilebong]

No response.
Got it.
You're a fraud.

Ok then. You do not understand textual criticism. You copy and paste well, though.

Avoidance is not argument.
Running away is probably your best choice.

I avoided nothing. You posted untruth. You posited something that you DO NOT KNOW and you claimed that you know it absolutely. That is untrue. Prove it. Show me evidence. Or show me what Wikipedia page you quoted it from.

The Harper Collins Bible is a testament to liberalism in scholarly study. It tests the limits of historical grammatical exegesis of scripture. Its defenders are all liberal left wingers. Your agenda is showing.

 

[Pop23]

Talked to him on Tuesday , seemed a bit depressed, not a bit gay.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Ok then. You do not understand textual criticism. You copy and paste well, though.

Avoidance is not argument.
Running away is probably your best choice.

I avoided nothing. You posted untruth. You posited something that you DO NOT KNOW and you claimed that you know it absolutely. That is untrue. Prove it. Show me evidence. Or show me what Wikipedia page you quoted it from.

The Harper Collins Bible is a testament to liberalism in scholarly study. It tests the limits of historical grammatical exegesis of scripture. Its defenders are all liberal left wingers. Your agenda is showing.

I am a former pastor. I have done a bit of study myself. It isn't a cut and paste job.
You aren't impressing me.
Quite the contrary. The fact that you don't know that this story didn't exist in the earliest manuscripts is quite telling.
You have a very limited exposure to textual criticism.
As for Harper Collins, it is you showing an agenda. It is far and away the most respected study bible in semanaries all over the country. Look over the scholars that contributed to this bible. They are highly respected academics in the field. You will be hard pressed to find a more distinguished group converging on one volume.

 

[Smilebong]

Avoidance is not argument.
Running away is probably your best choice.

I avoided nothing. You posted untruth. You posited something that you DO NOT KNOW and you claimed that you know it absolutely. That is untrue. Prove it. Show me evidence. Or show me what Wikipedia page you quoted it from.

The Harper Collins Bible is a testament to liberalism in scholarly study. It tests the limits of historical grammatical exegesis of scripture. Its defenders are all liberal left wingers. Your agenda is showing.

I am a former pastor. I have done a bit of study myself. It isn't a cut and paste job.
You aren't impressing me.
Quite the contrary. The fact that you don't know that this story didn't exist in the earliest manuscripts is quite telling.
You have a very limited exposure to textual criticism.
As for Harper Collins, it is you showing an agenda. It is far and away the most respected study bible in semanaries all over the country. Look over the scholars that contributed to this bible. They are highly respected academics in the field. You will be hard pressed to find a more distinguished group converging on one volume.

Yes, I am very familiar with it. Liberals who do not believe much of the bible at all.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I avoided nothing. You posted untruth. You posited something that you DO NOT KNOW and you claimed that you know it absolutely. That is untrue. Prove it. Show me evidence. Or show me what Wikipedia page you quoted it from.

The Harper Collins Bible is a testament to liberalism in scholarly study. It tests the limits of historical grammatical exegesis of scripture. Its defenders are all liberal left wingers. Your agenda is showing.

I am a former pastor. I have done a bit of study myself. It isn't a cut and paste job.
You aren't impressing me.
Quite the contrary. The fact that you don't know that this story didn't exist in the earliest manuscripts is quite telling.
You have a very limited exposure to textual criticism.
As for Harper Collins, it is you showing an agenda. It is far and away the most respected study bible in semanaries all over the country. Look over the scholars that contributed to this bible. They are highly respected academics in the field. You will be hard pressed to find a more distinguished group converging on one volume.

Yes, I am very familiar with it. Liberals who do not believe much of the bible at all.

Richard Hays, David Aune, Harold Attridge, Richard Bauckham, David Clines, James Crenshaw, Michael Fox, Bev Gaventa, Lee Keck, Sophie Laws, Burt Mack, Eric Meyers, Jacob Milgrom, Patrick Miller, Carol Newsom, James Sanders, David Tiede, Ray Van Leeuwen, Adela Collins

Look up some of these contributors and get back to me.

 

[Smilebong]

I am a former pastor. I have done a bit of study myself. It isn't a cut and paste job.
You aren't impressing me.
Quite the contrary. The fact that you don't know that this story didn't exist in the earliest manuscripts is quite telling.
You have a very limited exposure to textual criticism.
As for Harper Collins, it is you showing an agenda. It is far and away the most respected study bible in semanaries all over the country. Look over the scholars that contributed to this bible. They are highly respected academics in the field. You will be hard pressed to find a more distinguished group converging on one volume.

Yes, I am very familiar with it. Liberals who do not believe much of the bible at all.

Richard Hays, David Aune, Harold Attridge, Richard Bauckham, David Clines, James Crenshaw, Michael Fox, Bev Gaventa, Lee Keck, Sophie Laws, Burt Mack, Eric Meyers, Jacob Milgrom, Patrick Miller, Carol Newsom, James Sanders, David Tiede, Ray Van Leeuwen, Adela Collins

Look up some of these contributors and get back to me.

I don't need to. I know who they are.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Yes, I am very familiar with it. Liberals who do not believe much of the bible at all.

Richard Hays, David Aune, Harold Attridge, Richard Bauckham, David Clines, James Crenshaw, Michael Fox, Bev Gaventa, Lee Keck, Sophie Laws, Burt Mack, Eric Meyers, Jacob Milgrom, Patrick Miller, Carol Newsom, James Sanders, David Tiede, Ray Van Leeuwen, Adela Collins

Look up some of these contributors and get back to me.

I don't need to. I know who they are.

Sure you do.

 

[Smilebong]

Richard Hays, David Aune, Harold Attridge, Richard Bauckham, David Clines, James Crenshaw, Michael Fox, Bev Gaventa, Lee Keck, Sophie Laws, Burt Mack, Eric Meyers, Jacob Milgrom, Patrick Miller, Carol Newsom, James Sanders, David Tiede, Ray Van Leeuwen, Adela Collins

Look up some of these contributors and get back to me.

I don't need to. I know who they are.

Sure you do.

You are so juvenile.

Nobody is allowed to have any intelligence or education that you can't top, are they? You think your opinion, based on the Harper Collins Study Bible is right? It is so far left leaning it is not funny.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I don't need to. I know who they are.

Sure you do.

You are so juvenile.

Nobody is allowed to have any intelligence or education that you can't top, are they? You think your opinion, based on the Harper Collins Study Bible is right? It is so far left leaning it is not funny.

Oh, no.
It's just the intelligent ones make credible arguments.

 

[Iceweasel]

I read the last three pages, I don't know how King Jimmy fits in but nobody knows exactly what the "originals" said. Bruce Metzger wrote a good book on this "The Bible, It's Transmission, Corruption and Restoration" or something like that. We have a pretty good idea going back to the Codex Sinaiticus, earlier gets a bit iffy. There were things added by zealous monks and scribes and later cleaned up with comparative studies, since it spread fairly quickly in so many different languages.

 

[MaryL]

You have a time machine, Mr. Peabody?. Quiet you. I don't care. Homosexuality is like being left-handed or nearsighted. Does it require this obvious nudge to our communal conscience? This well funded putsch? Please. Gays have lots of money, and they are doing what the Republicans used to do. Tweeking our society to their benefit. We notice this kind of stuff. Now the 64 thousand dollar question is how long is this this GAY bubble going to last before it burst?

 

[koshergrl]

I wasn't aware that left-handed or near sighted people were allowed and encouraged to engage in public nudity and over-the-top public displays of affection that is frowned upon by the rest of the population....

I'll have to watch for that now.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I wasn't aware that left-handed or near sighted people were allowed and encouraged to engage in public nudity and over-the-top public displays of affection that is frowned upon by the rest of the population....

I'll have to watch for that now.

So you don't have any problem with gays.
You don't like public nudity.
Got it.

 

[Pop23]

He was gay

Is he now straight

 

[MaryL]

The Bible was an interesting work of fiction anyway, a small group of intellectuals leading the masses by the nose. Gays aren't doing that now? Oh, hell no. How cynical of me.