Talk:Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

You need to study more. There are many partial manuscripts than the full versions from the 300s and 400s A.D. Most works of antiquity have their earliest copies dating to the Middle Ages. The Bible stands alone for quantity of ancient manuscripts, reliability between copies, and early age of transcribing. And that doesn't even count the extra biblical writings of the early church fathers. Learn together 22:41, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Can you write coherently please, I can't understand what you are trying to say. Please read your post again to see if it makes sense. I was asking for a source for this assertion, not for you to repeat it to me. If you want to put this information in an encyclopedia someone has to have made this point previously otherwise it's original research. GodWarrior 23:09, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
You may wish to actually notice there is a source before writing. That information is well documented. It's only been around for 2 millennia... I am serious that you need to study more. That you didn't know this and the concept is foreign to you is unfortunate. Learn together 03:36, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I know you put a source. Thank you, that is all I was asking for. I was making the point that you shouldn't have put what seems like opinion in the article without sourcing it in the first place. This is basic stuff, you shouldn't have to be reminded. However, I still don't understand what you are trying to argue. You know the 300's and 400's is the same as the 4th and 5th century right? GodWarrior 12:05, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
But the source was in before I even wrote on this talk page. I was questioning why you would think it was opinion when it is already common knowledge in the field. I don't especially like providing a source in this case, as it makes it seem that this is the view of one work, when in fact it is not. Fact citations are usually used if one believes the information is false, hence I commented above. Based upon the hole in your knowlegdge in this area, I wanted to make sure you were aware the 4th and 5th century were the 300s and 400s. There was also the chance putting it in that form for you might spur your recollection of when Christianity became legal and their works were no longer burned, if you had read that sometime in your past. Learn together 18:44, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
First of all, you can add more than one source if you like, that would make it clear that many people hold this view. Secondly, regardless of what you feel the prevailing view in the field is, you still need a citation for statements like "...the King James Bible has been found to be largely accurate with only a few sections questioned." and "It has also been widely noted just how accurately the Bible has been copied, as is seen by comparing ancient versions that existed in different locations thousands of miles apart. The quantity of copies of the Bible from ancient times either in full, fragmented parts, or quotes from the writings of the ancient fathers, makes it by far the most copied and reliable document of antiquity. To question the Bible, one must throw out all ancient writings as being inaccurate since they are not nearly as well documented, as extensive, or copied as accurately between versions." The average reader will ask "widely noted by whom?" if you don't have a citation for things like this. I am not sure why you keep insisting that I have a "hole in knowlegdge" in this area (it's spelled knowledge, btw). For your information, I have taken a number of college-level history courses with the majority being from this time period. I also don't see the relevance of noting that Christian documents were often burned before the Edict of Milan. Just because Christians were persecuted before that time, you cannot give their holy book a pass in terms of it's reliability. You also make a big deal about how the Bible is more reliable than other ancient documents. In general, I would agree with this assertion (excepting of course original stone inscriptions and the like). However, you fail to note that other ancient documents do not claim to be the infallible word of God and therefore are not held to the same standard. GodWarrior 20:56, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
  • I don't wish to take the time to check up multiple sources for a book that is on par with Holocaust deniers. I will probably do so in more detail if I ever add information to the Bible article. As soon as the author of this work tried to talk about "translations of translations" and ignored the fact the original Greek is used bypassing all of those translations, he lost all credibility.
  • As for the King James Bible being largely accurate, more than quoting someone, it helps to actually know it. Modern study Bibles will tell you the sections that are different and some of us actually read them. Some of us also go to Bible studies where all different versions are read and get to experience first hand the styles and differences. Someday I may go through and fill this in under the KJV, but I don't see a need to do so here.
  • The hole in your knowledge is displayed from not recognizing the partial manuscripts and writings of the early church fathers painting a different picture, or the realization that the "translations of translations" were meaningless to the argument as anyone with a knowledge of the history of the Bible would know. It's not a crime to have a hole, but the prudent step is to research it once someone has given information missing from the book/your knowledge. The more you say sources are needed without further comment, the more it shows you hadn't heard of that position. Again that's not a crime, but don't expect praise for it.
  • As I stated to you apart from this article, it is good that you have taken the time to get a college education and I applaud you for whatever steps you take in your life to better yourself, but I think we are both aware Biblical defense is not taught in most courses on antiquity -- hence why the concepts were foreign to you.
  • BTW, making a point of showing a typo in another person's response is not impressive.
  • You are bringing out new lines of argument at the end with the "infallible word of God" addition. But that is not a point you brought up in the article, obviously since it would be premised with the reliability of the Scriptures above other work of antiquity. In the end whatever standard you use to invalidate the Bible based on the limits of historical documents in antiquity will also cause you to throw out almost all history earlier than a few centuries ago for the same reason if you are consistent. Personally, I have never met anyone that is consistent in this regard. It appears now you wish to get into a broader debate, and I will email you to see if we can begin down this direction in back and forth emails as it is something I enjoy, but it's a tangent from this article and the claims made from the author, which should be focused on based on their own merits, and already have been.
Learn together 23:03, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

"I am removing..."

"I am removing the fact citations for now until I can apply sources;" - isn't the idea to remove it after you have sources? Wandering 22:00, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Point taken, but I also wanted to see if sources were needed at all. In looking at it, I don't believe so. The first fact citation on the accuracy of the King James Bible can be seen by anyone who has read different Bible versions. The differences are basically noted above in talking about Ehrman's 'findings' and in the NIV Study Bible, where they had been found and dealt with 20 years earlier -- and while there are a number of small differences and two disputed sections based upon the finding of more and earlier manuscripts in the last 300+ years, the changes compared to the volume of the overall work is small indeed.
The other fact citation is covered under the reference to the writings of McDowell. That paragraph was from his work. Learn together 11:47, 29 August 2008 (EDT)