Danmark wrote: [Replying to post 300 by robinriley]
I can understand why some Christians would hate the point of view and inconvenient facts of many of Ehrman's books. However, your piece appears to merely be opinion. Tho' you make detailed complaints, you have failed to present evidence to support your opinion.
I join in recommending Misquoting Jesus..
http://infidels.org/library/modern/thom ... rstcoming/
Ehram is a hack!
He'd be a hack wheather the observant reader of his pandering was a christian or anything else ... but he is good at selling books to people already of the same bias.
And no, I didn't "fail" to provide supporting evidence ... fact of the matter, I provided a couple valid points, which you've conviently not addressed ...? ...
And, this being a debate forum, I'd now like to hear your specific points about why he isn't just a peddler of junk ideas, which some do willingly allow themselves to be sold ....? ...
But Ehram aside, perhaps you didn't notice the earlier post where I've analyized Paul's epistles, specifially looking at the variations ...and it's obvious to the most casual observer, the one who doesn't approach the subject with their minds already made up ...
that there's no way that the innane conjecture could possibly be valid ... that is, there be more errors than words, because in just the sample universe of all 13 Paulien epistles, there are only 895 verses with any variations, and the relitive few variations within these can be catergorized into those areas where the variation makes abolutly no real difference (said groupings accounting for over half of all the variations), and then the other variations, which do, indeed, merit a closer look.
That is, I know that there are variations that are, indeed, problematic, and being more open minded, am willing to look closer into just how these might affect our reliance upon certain specific scriptural verses ... That is, I dont just lump, willy-nilly "variations" all together, as so-called proof against the the totality of NT scripture, like your silly Ehrman. In other words, we should be using a scientific approach, not depending upon the unvarifiable bias-based propoganda here-say of a ... pandering liar, looking to sell books to those who like their ideas pre-chewed, and packaged in shinny wrappings.
So then, deep thinker ... I've listed the few variations in each of Paul's letters, why dont you pick a paticular epistle, and then show all of us how said variations do damn the lot, are "evidence" of said scriptures not being God-breathed?
Guess what I'm saying, dear Danmak, is ..."SHOW ME THE MONEY!" ...
Present YOUR evidence to support YOUR opinion ... since I've already given you mine!
Note: I think I'm getting the hang of this so-called "christian" debate site!
The Laymanâ€™s Companion (TLC) is compiled from â€œThe New Testament In The Original Greek - Byzantine Textform 2005,â€� (BT2005) by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpoint; with all differences noted (verses are asterisked) between it and Greek Critical Texts (*GCT), such as the â€œGreek New Testament SBL Edition,â€� (GNTSBL) by Michael Holmes (as compared against Westcott and Hort, Tisehendorf, and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum). In these thirteen epistles of Paul there are 895 verses with variations (some with multiple variations); there are 519 Word Deletions, and these are the highest source of variation in every epistle. There are 232 Different Words variations; then 196 Syntax/ Verse Order/ Verse Breaks; then 172 Simple Spelling differences; then 137 Declensions; 109 Parsings; 104 Words Added; and 38 Crasis variations.