Do you suggest that you would tire of the preaching of the same gospel over and over or the same scriptural truths over and over and that you would stop listening to the repeating of the Scriptures? Would you object to reading the same Bible over and over?
Your allegation is clearly not true. You likely have not read many of my posts against which you make your bogus claim. Since you claim that you ignore my posts 99% of the time, you admit that you have not read them so you do not know what you are talking about.
Just because we cannot reconstruct the putative originals does not mean we are "full of doubt and uncertainty" about the biblical texts. This is a gross exaggeration based on the all-or-nothing thinking that permeates the position of KJV Onlyism. Through comparing the extant variants and understanding scribal habits, textual critics have derived a number of general rules to assist in adjudicating the differences and in most cases we can be reasonably certain that the reconstructed text reflects the earliest-recoverable version. The degree to which this reflects the putative originals will always have a margin of uncertainty, but it is minimal, not the catastrophe you imply above in your question-begging comments about a "pure" Bible...
Yep! Broken record.
False. I addressed the facts.
Neither section is original to its respective gospel so if this is a criterion for the status of "scripture" (as most who embrace the concept would propose), then no they are not. That wasn't a difficult question to answer... was it supposed to be?
And what is a "dyed-in-the-wool Hortian" and do you think I am such an individual?
I see, so you can ask a question and I answer straightforwardly, but when I ask you a question, you can dodge it. I ask again, what is a "dyed-in-the-wool Hortian" and do you think I am such an individual? The question that now appears in the post to which I responded was edited in afterward and I will answer it provided this is a fair back and forth of Q&A. That is entirely up to you...
So you're retracting your Hortian comment and want me instead to answer this: "How certain are you of those two sections as not being scripture?"
It is Avery's go-to insult and an attack on F.J.A. Hort, an Anglican prelate and translator of the Bible who, unlike Avery, was fluent in Koine Greek, could read and write Hebrew AND Latin.
So I'm either a "weird eclectic" or a "Hortian dupe" --- gee, thanks. If and when you are interested in a civil discussion, let me know. In the meantime, it's the 8th rather than 16th verse of Mark where critical scholars terminate the gospel...
Thanks kiwimac... I got the connection to Hort, but wasn't exactly sure where that was being driven or why I would be affiliated with him. I don't recall mentioning either him or Westcott recently, nor would I or any contemporary critical scholar identify our positions with him specifically, even if we are appreciative of the work he did. For example, I reject his theory of so-called 'Western Non-Interpolations' and wrote a term paper some years back challenging Ehrman's defense of it particularly as it relates to Luke 24:51-52. I've been meaning to come back to it, make some revisions and submit it for peer review/publication... so many projects, so little time! In any case, I appreciate the post and confirmation that it was intended as an insult.
Thanks for the correction. My mind wandered
.
You're welcome... perhaps it wandered to the chapter. In any case, as I said before, if you want a civil discussion, I'd be more than happy to have one... it's up to you.Thanks for the correction. My mind wandered
