09 Jul 20
5 edits
@KingDavid403
Here's a good video on the debate. Gives both sides etc.
Edit: Some Scriptures I found interesting in Isiah that might pertain:
[Isiah 7:14-16 NKJV] 14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. 15 "Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 "For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings."
10 Jul 20
1 edit
@kingdavid403 saidBut you do understand, though, that what you describe as "copies" of what were "the original" texts, no matter how earnest you are about your beliefs and assertions ["It is what is", as you say], you do not know what "the originals" were exactly, and you do not know how faithful and accurate the "copies" were, right?
Take it as you wish. It is what it is. 🙂
I mean, you really don't even know what century the oldest existing "copies" date back to, yes?
What if the copyists were even only a little bit as slapdash and as blase about your own assumptions and convictions? And then if all this were mutiplied by countless centuries?
10 Jul 20
@fmf saidI've already given my story (and I'm sticking with it), and I've answered all these questions of yours already.
But you do understand, though, that what you describe as "copies" of what were "the original" texts, no matter how earnest you are about your beliefs and assertions ["It is what is", as you say], you do not know what "the originals" were exactly, and you do not know how faithful and accurate the "copies" were, right?
I mean, you really don't even know what century the oldest ...[text shortened]... ut your own assumptions and convictions? And then if all this were mutiplied by countless centuries?
10 Jul 20
@kingdavid403 saidGood for you if you are sincere about what you believe. But do you think you are really making a strong case for the assertions you are making about "original" texts and the quality of "copies"?
I've already given my story (and I'm sticking with it), and I've answered all these questions of yours already.
10 Jul 20
2 edits
@fmf saidYes, I do.
Good for you if you are sincere about what you believe. But do you think you are really making a strong case for the assertions you are making about "original" texts and the quality of "copies"?
[2 Titus 3:16 NIV] "16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"
Good enough for me right there. Notice the word ALL.
As I said before, A Bible is not required for salvation, or to have a relationship with God. If it's not for you, then so be it.
10 Jul 20
@kingdavid403 saidA quote from one of the texts we are talking about? That's your go-to part of the "strong case" you are making?
Yes, I do.
[2 Titus 3:16 NIV] "16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"
Good enough for me right there. Notice the word ALL.
10 Jul 20
@fmf saidlol... Yep. 🙂
A quote from one of the texts we are talking about? That's your go-to part of the "strong case" you are making?
10 Jul 20
@kingdavid403 saidDon't get the wrong end of the strick. We are similar in what is arguably a fundamental way. You assume the copies of the "original" texts are "well copied and preserved" - you JUST DO, AND THAT'S THAT - although you aren't really making a strong case.
I've already given my story (and I'm sticking with it), and I've answered all these questions of yours already.
Meanwhile, I assume the copies of the "original" texts are not "well copied and preserved" - I JUST DO NOT, AND THAT'S THAT - although I am not really making a strong case. We are both being honest. We are not so different.
10 Jul 20
@kingdavid403 saidSo you believe that people from religions that don't refer to the Bible can have "salvation" too?
As I said before, A Bible is not required for salvation, or to have a relationship with God. If it's not for you, then so be it.
10 Jul 20
@fmf saidWell sir, you can study that out just as well as I can. Please let me know what you find. I'm not in this forum to write 2000 word essays. Sorry. 🙂
Don't get the wrong end of the strick. We are similar in what is arguably a fundamental way. You assume the copies of the "original" texts are "well copied and preserved" - you JUST DO, AND THAT'S THAT - although you aren't really making a strong case.
Meanwhile, I assume the copies of the "original" texts are not "well copied and preserved" - I JUST DO NOT, AND THAT'S THAT - although I am not really making a strong case. We are both being honest. We are not so different.
10 Jul 20
1 edit
@fmf saidOf course! They do not have to be any religion.
So you believe that people from religions that don't refer to the Bible can have "salvation" too?
10 Jul 20
@kingdavid403 saidWhat have you made of Bart D. Ehrman's work on this issue? Have you studied it?
Well sir, you can study that out just as well as I can.
10 Jul 20
@kingdavid403 saidHow does a Jew, for instance, who believes that Jesus was a fake and an imposter get "saved"?
Of course! They do not have to be any religion.
10 Jul 20
@kingdavid403 saidDoes this mean that, if you were to write a 2,000-word essay about the issue of texts being copied over thousands of years, you could make a stronger case than you do by simply quoting 2 Titus 3:16?
I'm not in this forum to write 2000 word essays. Sorry.
10 Jul 20
@fmf saidno, do you have a link?
What have you made of Bart D. Ehrman's work on this issue? Have you studied it?