+
   A Desperate Appeal for Sound Judgment
.
/ Subject > Re: Is Jesus Like God? [#18] / 1Dec02 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /
/ Forum TOL General Theology > Anti-Triunitarian proof texts /
.
[Mary] thought he was the man who took care of the garden.
So she said to him, 'Sir, if you have carried him away,
tell me where you have laid him. I will take him away.'
-- John 20:15 / Worldwide English Version
.
> On Nov28 AVmetro wrote: I never said that I believe "[that
> solutions to] textual obscurities and mysteries cannot
> be found". I merely stated that in order to prove that
> a certain text is spurious merely by accessing what is
> and is not John's style is the very thing we are in
> disagreement over now.
.
 textman agrees: Right. But this is a question of *method*,
AV. Which is to say, it is basically a hermeneutical problem,
and MUST therefore be approached from that angle (ie. if
you wish to get out of the quicksand, I mean).
.
> I can't find any evidence from manuscripts to support this
> allegation, and must therefore turn to the consistency of
> John's gospel. However, I cannot simply do this in a short
> moment as we both disagree as to what his "style" was.
.
 I think we can at least agree to the main elements of John's
style, if not the specific teachings involved. John's style is
simple and straight-forward. His command of the Greek language
is not nearly as sure and elaborate as that of the author of
Lk-Acts. It is not as subtle and rich in depth as the style
of the prophet Jacob (ie. in Jm). But it is forceful and
commanding because John has no tolerance for confusion and
obscurity. His teachings are clear and consistent because
this is not just his literary style, but also his purpose in
writing the gospel, his hermeneutical intention and promise: to
be as direct and as sensible as possible in all his teachings.
.
 Another aspect of John's style is his clear awareness of the
literary traditions of his day (ie. second half of the first
century), both Christian and non-Christian. In this regard we
have already mentioned the relevance of Philo, and books such
as Genesis, Isaiah, Mark, and (most especially) Matthew. So
his knowledge of important writings is very impressive; and
diverse as well. Consider, for example, the way John's love
of the prophets is presented in the following pericope:
.
 Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one
Moses wrote about in the law, and the prophets also wrote
about - Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." Nathanael
replied, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Philip
replied, "Come and see." Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward
him and exclaimed, "Look, a true Israelite in whom there is
no deceit!" Nathanael asked him, "How do you know me?" Jesus
replied, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the
fig tree, I saw you." Nathanael answered him, "Rabbi, you are
the Son of God; you are the King of Israel!" Jesus said to
him, "Because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree,
do you believe? You will see greater things than these."
-- John 1:45-50 / NETbible
.
And how does this passage relate to the OT prophets? Well ...
.
 The LORD replied, "Is it right for you to be angry about
this?" Then Jonah went out to the east side of the city and
made a shelter to sit under as he waited to see if anything
would happen to the city. And the LORD God arranged for a
leafy plant to grow there, and soon it spread its broad leaves
over Jonah's head, shading him from the sun. This eased some
of his discomfort, and Jonah was very grateful for the plant.
But God also prepared a worm! The next morning at dawn the
worm ate through the stem of the plant, so that it soon
died and withered away. And as the sun grew hot, God sent a
scorching east wind to blow on Jonah. The sun beat down on
his head until he grew faint and wished to die. "Death is
certainly better than this!" he exclaimed. Then God said to
Jonah, "Is it right for you to be angry because the plant
died?" "Yes," Jonah retorted, "even angry enough to die!"
-- Jonah 4:4-9 / New Living Translation
.
 Is there a connection there? A faint hint of a trace
of a connection? Yes? No? Maybe? ... I'm so confused!
.
 Anyway, for my part I think that John has largely accomplished
what he set out to do. The chief problems come not from the
text, but from the reader who is locked into a master-slave
relationship with the Bible (where the Word of God is thus
made into the slave of pious and infallible reader-believers!)
.
> It's also a little harder to demonstrate my case when every
> passage I turn to in order to support my conclusions are
> allegedly "added in" after the death of the Apostle John.
.
 Well, this is just the point where we MUST come to some
reasonable consensus! My position is that *ALL* the verses in
Jn that *seem* to support a trinitarian interpretation of the
gospel can be shown to be either foreign additions to the
original autograph or views (ie. specifically erroneous and
non-Johannine views) that John sets down in order to CONTRAST
them with his own teachings (eg. 5:18 & 20:28). You are
very right to suppose that without the assistance of these
corrupted and misinterpreted verses you cannot make your
case! That is precisely the truth I want you to publicly
acknowledge: that John's teachings are incompatible with
trinitarian doctrines and interpretations!!!
.
 But you are also very wrong to say that these changes and
additions to the text are "alleged". There is nothing
"alleged" about the obvious distortion that has befallen verse
1:18! *Anybody* can compare the many and various available
versions of this verse and see that there is a great deal of
confusion here. I have explained verse 1:18 as the result of
the same sort of (inauthentic) pious scribal "improvement"
that occurred in the last clause of 1:1, and thus solved the
textual-problems that those verses pose. But you *prefer* NOT
to explain why the text is corrupt. You *prefer* to accept
the corruption as genuine; even though it is clearly contrary
to John's teachings! Who, then, is at fault here, AV?
Who is denying the truth of things in favor of mystical,
metaphysical ideologies? Who, in short, is the one lacking
in methodological respect for the inspired texts?
.
> If you would like me to support my beliefs
> from books other than John, just say so.
.
 I would NOT! If we cannot agree to what John (who is, for
the most part, clear in his teachings) is telling us here in
1Jn&Jn, then it is highly unlikely that we would agree as to
what is being said in other, far more difficult and obscure,
books (eg. Hebrews and Isaiah). No, first we must come to some
understanding/agreement as to where John stands, THEN we can
look to other authors and compare their thinking with John's.
.
> Would that make things easier in regards to
> distinguishing between what is and what is not *spurious*?
.
Most certainly NOT! When Luther and the other early Reformers
developed the hermeneutical principle of using scripture
to interpret scripture, what they meant was that in those
(supposedly rare) cases when the plain or literal meaning is
obscure or awkward or seemingly wrong, then other passages
dealing with the same topic may be used to illuminate the
hidden meaning. In other words, using scripture to interpret
scripture means using clear and precise texts to enlighten
texts that are dark or obscure in their intended meaning.
I have no problem with this hermeneutical principle, AV.
In fact, I use it often myself.
.
 *BUT* in the case of John this principle does not, in fact,
apply ... outside the range of 1Jn&Jn that is. I simply mean
that it is not necessary (or even wise) to use external texts
because John is more than capable of saying for himself what
he means! If not for the sad and unnecessary confusion created
by bad translations and horrendous interpretations, I am
certain that the vast majority of bible-readers would, like
me, have no problems understanding John. And the reason why
1Jn&Jn are so readable and intelligible is that the author
*deliberately and consciously* set out to proclaim the gospel
*clearly and plainly* so that all believers may know and
believe, and thus come to faith and life.
.
>> textman previously wrote: <snip> I have found a few answers
>> of my own over the years, and even solved a few problems
>> and mysteries that have vexed countless scholars both
>> past and present. <snip>
.
> Examples of such would be....? Just curious.
.
 Well golly, AV, my website is just chock full of such
prophetic goodies. Dost thou require a link thereto mayhap?
Verily, I say unto to thee: Get thee hence at once, forsooth!
http://cybrwurm.tripod.com/smap.htm
.
 But if you are not so adventurous as to clicketh thyself
away, I will tell you an example here and now: One of my
earliest discoveries was that 1&2Thessalonians is composed of
four (ie.4) separate and distinct letters that were produced
by the cooperative and collaborative efforts of both Paulos and
Silvanus. These plain literary facts, when acknowledged and
accepted by truth-loving bible-students, puts them light-years
ahead of the scribes and pharisees in terms of being better-
situated to understand not only 1&2Th, but also how the
genesis of the Christian epistle actually came about as a
historical process of interaction between the two prophets and
the very Greek world around them ... That's just one example,
AV; there are many others, of course. :D
.
>> And why is that, you ask? Because History *necessarily*
>> goes beyond the physical evidence, AV! If you cannot accept
>> this basic fact of life, then there is no hope for you at
>> all. Oh say it ain't so!
.
> Of course it ain't so, textman! <snip remainder>
.
 So then you agree that history goes beyond the raw facts, but
you are NOT prepared to admit that the facts show that the
text of John has been significantly altered in the centuries
prior to Constantine?!? How the heck does that work exactly?
.
 So how shall we discern truth from error? How shall we find
and distinguish between what is authentic (eg. to the spirit
of the sacred texts) and what is inauthentic? How, in short,
can we be sure that we (as finite and limited individuals,
and as larger integrated churches and/or communities, and as
members of the timeless (but still very *historical*) Body
of Christ) are reading and understanding correctly? And in
a manner most likely to be acceptable and pleasing, not to
the world and its peoples, but to our Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ, and to the One True God?
.
 These are not easy questions for those who do not rest content
with a trivial and superficial faith! No sir. But they must be
taken seriously by believers if the Faith is to survive and
thrive in the 21st century global village. That's a fact. But
look at how other Christians deal with these weighty matters:
.
Many bible-readers (and not necessarily excluding non-
believers), whenever they take up this or that historically
particular (or physical form) of the Word of God, at once
trust implicitly that their own understanding is quite
sufficient unto whatever biblical passage that their eyes may
(or may not) fall to. After all, there's them there words
right there on the page in black and white, complete with the
ugliest font every devised by sadistic publishers. The reader
knows the words, knows they lock together to form readable
and coherent sentences that hang frozen and timeless in the
glorious realm of the reader's perfect understanding!
.
 Oh yes, it's all so simple and straight-forward. Only a fool
could doubt that the reader is the absolute and infallible
master of the word in every conceivable way. The WINONA RYDER
method of bible study! Which proceeds in the certain knowledge
that hermeneutics is the exclusive pursuit of fools and madmen!
That's what it is, alright. [Now you must please excuse the
extremely queasy one whilst he steps into the john in order
to express his gutmost-feelings about the *vast* majority of
bible-readers! ... Baarrrffffiinnggg now. Chunks yet. Yuch!]
.
 :(
.
 [Later] On the other hand, many other believers read the
bible casually, or devoutly, or even for no particular reason
at all, and yet are content to leave all (or most) of the
"absolute judgments" and "great theological conclusions" to
their most trusted scribes and pharisees; who are taught about
the scriptures by professionals, by golly, and already know
all about the sacred scriptures. So there!
.
 Still others have sense enough NOT to rely on their own
subjective whims and fancies, not to rely on obscure traditions
or the doubtful wisdom of those committed to priestcraft. They
seek a sensible accounting of the scriptures (and I for one
affirm their right to be satisfied in this natural impulse),
and want to be secure in their own understanding; at least as
regards the most basic essentials of biblical literature and
their teachings. And so they eagerly turn to the massive and
impressive secondary literature, the monstrous and snarling
writings of biblical scholarship generated by many many many
very dedicated bible-scholars (like unto the scribes and
pharisees).
.
 In thus taking cognizance of the thinking of the exegetes
and commentators and translators and textual-critics and etc
etc etc, they eventually, inevitably, and unavoidably become
enmeshed and entangled and entombed in the vast conceptual
system that is the biblical paradigm which the scribes and
pharisees have built and rebuilt and refined for themselves
over the course of many thousands of years of ceaseless toil
and labor, all for the greater glory of God, and surely you
would not want to be so crude and barbaric as to cast any
doubt on *ALL* of that, now would you, no, of course not!
.
 What is wrong with all this? Is it not the case that all of
this gross and unnecessary hermeneutical chaos is the logical
result of the reader's confusion of truth and method? Yes,
perhaps it is! Perhaps a more sensible approach to the sacred
texts is one that proceeds rationally from authentic and
legitimate methods (well-grounded in history and philosophy)
to established truths that can be relied upon to correctly
and fruitfully guide our whole understanding of the Bible,
AND all of the commentaries, reflections, and critiques,
that thus flow forth from those deep sources.
.
 Think it over ...
.
       - one who offers a better way - textman ;>
.
P.S. "I have at all times written my writings with my whole
heart and soul; I do not know what purely intellectual
problems are." -- F. Nietzsche (19C German anti-prophet)
x

+
   Borrowed Wisdom Found Wanting!
.
/ Subject >  Re: Is Jesus Like God? [#19] / 05Dec02 /
/ Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /
.
 "But because I am telling you the truth, you do not believe
me. Who among you can prove me guilty of any sin? If I am
telling you the truth, why don’t you believe me? The one
who belongs to God listens and responds to God’s words. You
don’t listen and respond, because you don’t belong to God."
-- John 8:45-47 / NETbible
.
>>> textman previously wrote: WARNING: P52 Fallout Ahead!
>>> <snip> Absolutely! I follow the facts *wherever*
>>> they may lead.
.
>> On Nov15 scholar (antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com) replied:
>> OK, Textman, follow these facts wherever they may lead:
.
 After declining to do so for a rather short while, textman
finally relents and changes his mind about scholar's
challenge, and thus accordingly sayeth: Okay scholar,
dazzle me with your borrowed wisdom! ~:D
.
> Article by Robert Stewart, posted on alt.religion.christian.
> baptist under the title, 'Greek New Testament': When sharing
> Bible readings with Christian friends, you may have noticed
> that certain verses appear to be missing (or in dispute)
> indicated by the introduction of a hyphen or brackets at
> such places as Matt 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44,46;
> 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; 24:12; 40; John 5:4; Acts
> 8:37; Rom 16:24; etc.
.
 Yeah, okay. I'm with you so far.
.
> Then again there are those strange comments casting
> doubt over the readings of Mark 16:9-20
.
 No one is "casting doubt" on Mark, scholar (I mean Robert).
Scholars (I mean REAL bible scholars) are merely pointing out
a not so unique feature about the gospel, namely an added
ending; which many NT books have; eg. John, Hebrews, etc.
These little additions and changes to the texts (of which
their are *MANY*) are a part of the history of the text
as copies of copies were handed down generation after
generation, with each making its own "relatively minor"
changes to the common scriptures.
.
> and John 7:53 - 8:11
.
 Another curious feature about the NT, namely a displaced
passage/sheet probably of accidental origins. Again nothing to
get excited about. None but a twisted mind could understand
any of this as "casting doubt". That's just the way the text
is, scholar. If you don't like the richness and complexity and
mystery that is woven throughout the scriptures to confuse and
confound the ignorant and half-hearted, then I strongly suggest
you get off-line and leave the real bible studying to those who
are prepared to accept the bible as it really is, "warts and
all" as they say. And yes, God did deliberately sow confusion
and ambiguity into the texts in order to test believers who
dare to read the Word of God with an arrogant heart, to see
if they have enough wits about them to even notice what's
going behind the bare letters and words!
.
> and talk of "ancient" and "late" manuscripts.
.
 Would you prefer second century papyrus fragments,
and all the copies of them that came afterward?
.
> For most Christians, this is all a bit above their heads,
.
 Well then perhaps the lazy swine would do well to get their
heads out of their holes and thus raise and rouse themselves
enough to investigate the thoroughly fascinating world of
manuscripts and textual criticism and bible scholarship and
whatnot. If that's not TOO much trouble! Grrrrr
.
> and we tend to leave it all in the more than capable
> hands of those who know about such things. <snipsome>
.
 Right. The scribes and pharisees. Good choice ... NOT!
.
> In approaching the NIV, I read in the Preface that the Greek
> text used was "an eclectic one". The word "eclectic" had me
> looking for my Dictionary. I found that the word "eclectic"
> means "chosen from various sources". That reminds me. In
> the local shop we had a "Pick 'n' Mix" counter where the
> children could pick their various favorite sweets, toffees,
> and candies from a wide selection. They put them all in one
> bag and were weighed together as one purchase. The word
> "eclectic" means "Pick 'n' Mix".
.
 No, what it means, you silly goose, is that earlier sources
are BETTER than later sources, *because* they are far more
likely (in general) to be closer to the original autographs
than more recent documents (ie. less tampered with). This is
not a difficult concept to grasp (even for fundies); and this
disparaging attitude of yours -> "eclectic" means "Pick 'n'
Mix" <- suggests that you can't take biblical scholarship
seriously.
.
> I wrote to the International Bible Society to enquire about
> the "eclectic" text of the NIV. Ralph Earle advised me that
> the Greek text of the NIV was basically that found in the
> United Bible Societies/Nestle-Aland printed Greek New
> Testament text. I subsequently discovered that this modern
> UBS/Nestle-Aland "eclectic" text forms the basis for most
> of the modern translations of the New Testament.
.
 Most people who inquire into the matter will discover that
the NIV has many flaws; eg. when compared with more strictly
literal translations. But this is not because of the quality
of the Greek texts used, but because of the goal or purpose
of the translation. That is, the NIV was basically designed
to be *readable*. It was NOT deliberately designed to be
"evil" or whatever. Thus the NIV is such a popular version
chiefly because it succeeds in being readable, which is to
say, accessible to modern readers of newspapers and novels
(and other assorted trash).
.
 So the question is: Is too much authenticity sacrificed for
readability? I think so; and so do you, right, scholar? But I
object to the NIV because making the scriptures more readable
(in most modern translations) means imposing upon the texts
a uniform rhetorical style, such that the bible now resembles a
rather large (and poorly edited) novel, an epic prose drama in
the grand manner, with a beginning, a middle, and an end.
Just so. Unfortunately, this "smooth prose" style is often
quite artificial, and tends to obliterate the unique tones and
styles of the individual inspired authors. One consequence
of this, alas, is that it makes it very hard for many readers
to see, 4X, that the author of 1Peter is quite a different
person from the one who wrote 2Peter.
.
 Another consequence is that it tends to kill the spirit
behind, between, and beneath the letter. Now don't get
me wrong; it IS a good idea to make the scriptures more
accessible and readable to modern readers expectations, and
so forth, it's just that the NIV, like many other versions, went
about it the wrong way. That is, the problem is not the text
itself, but the awful and horrendous FORMAT that the bible-
makers insist on keeping the Word locked into. People have to
get over this absurd notion that the canonical format (like
the book titles, various additions, and other irregularities)
are themselves inspired!
.
> My investigations revealed that the joint UBS/Nestle-Aland
> Editorial Committee was presided over by the renowned Jesuit
> named Carlo Maria Martini, Cardinal Archbishop of Milan (the
> largest Roman Catholic diocese in the world), President
> of the Council of European Bishops, former Rector of the
> Pontifical Biblical Institute, "Rector Magnificus" of the
> Gregorian University, and regarded by many as "the Pope
> in Waiting".
.
 Ah so. There was a high powered Cat involved, eh? I'm already
suspicious alright. But now you're disparaging the UBS/Nestle-
Aland Greek text because of the shortcomings of the NIV?
Get serious, pal!
.
> <snip> Paul made his missionary base in Antioch and it
> was from Antioch that Paul made his missionary tours to
> establish churches in Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica,
> Corinth, Ephesus, and other cities and towns throughout Asia
> Minor and Greece. History records that it was to Antioch
> (not Jerusalem or Rome) that these Greek speaking churches
> naturally gravitated. No wonder Antioch was called the
> "Mother of all the Gentile churches".
.
 These statements are sheer nonsense! This is NOT true
history at all. This is a rosy Lukan vision/fantasy of the first
century that has no real contact with historical realities at
all. Paul did not make his base in Antioch! What an absurd
notion. Paul and Silvanus were only too glad to leave Antioch
(and Jerusalem) behind them! Where do you think Paul's enemies
came from? They didn't come all the way from Palestine, bud.
Yes, they came from Antioch. "Mother of all the Gentile
churches" indeed. What a gross and appalling LIE that is!
.
> <snip> It can be safely said that the original hand written
> autographs of John, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians,
> Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy,
> Titus, Philemon, 1 & 2 Peter, 1 & 2 & 3 John, and the
> Revelation were held in Asia Minor and Greece.
.
 Here's some *MORE* gross and stupid lies demonstrating that
the author is NOT a bible scholar, AND that his sources are
historical imbeciles! Look, the 27 NT books come from many
and various regions around the Mediterranean Basin:
1 - Aegean: 1&2Thessalonians, Philemon, Philippians,
  1&2Corinthians, Galatians, Romans / Ephesians&Colossians
2 - Antioch: Mark & Matthew
3 - Egypt: Hebrews; John; 1&2&3John; James&Jude&2Peter
4 - Rome: Luke-Acts; 1&2Timothy, Titus
5 - Misc: 1Peter from NE Asia Minor; Rev from Patmos island
.
 Bearing in mind that the chronological sequence of the
documents is not at all apparent in the above scheme, the
reader will find (if he considers it well) that my arrangement
of the books is far more sensible, historical, and practical
than the confused and disorderly MESS offered by Mr Stewart.
.
> <snip a TON of rubbish> It was not long before sharp-eyed
> scholars noticed that the text of the printed Greek New
> Testament of Erasmus, and his Latin translation, were
> substantially different from the text of the Roman
> Catholic Bible, the Latin Vulgate.
.
 Right. Different sources + different translators = *VERY*
different versions. It really isn't that hard to understand.
Come on all you fundies: concentrate! Must I beat the truth
into thy thick noggins with this here canoe paddle?
.
> <snip ANOTHER ton of rubbish> Conclusion: The King James
> Version Bible (the one with the old English in it) is an
> accurate translation of the real original unaltered
> scriptures; both old and new Testaments. They were copied
> and recopied word for word and handed down through the
> centuries. -- Robert Stewart
.
 Well, scholar (and Robert), you both couldn't possibly be more
wrong. In fact, this conclusion of yours only demonstrates the
full depths of your ignorance about the KJV. A friend recently
explained this matter quite nicely, so I'll give him the last
say in this article:
.
>> On Nov15, in TOL: Alleged NT Discrepancies?, Jaltus wrote:
>> The KJV is based upon the text of Erasmus, who put together
>> 2 poor manuscripts of the MT which were missing the last 6
>> verses of Revelation, so he translated them from Latin into
>> Greek and his translation matched NO COPY EVER FOUND.
>> The KJV is in fact based upon his mistranslation of the last 6
>> verses of Revelation, which is quite humorously ironic when
>> you read those last 6 verses. You are right that there is
>> nothing better than the original, but the original is not
>> what you are using [KJV].
.
     - one who dismantles the paradigm - texttman ;>
.
P.S.  "And the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit
    of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty;" (2Cor3:17/YLT)
x

Goto LikeGod #20

textman
*