Misquoting Jesus-a must read

by dawg 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  dawg

  I stand corrected on some of what I said, good job!
• 

  dust

  Ehrman's book is what we could call "an academic discipline made understandable". The principle of "the less understandable text-variant is probably more original than a more understandable text-variant" can be hard to grasp for an average JW, even if it is explained ("corrections" have made the text easier to understand, which means that the less understantable variants are more original). But then it could be an idea to mention that also the NW translation applies these principles, cf. the wording in Acts 17:4 (also commented in the book): Some text variants talk about "the principal women", others talk about "the wives of the principal men". At that time it would be hard to imagine "principle women", so we must assume that this is the original wording. And indeed, also the NW translation uses "the pinciple women".
  
  Of course this undermines any "we need to change the wording and add a few [brackets] in our NW translation to make the meaning of the text more available"...
• 

  smellsgood

  Scholars anywhere that would go on record saying they believed the NT was in fact written by the apostles; i decided to researcht he subject on my own. I could find no scholars that believed the apostles wrote the NT; as a matter of fact, they all said the apostles couldn't have written them.
  
  smellsgood: First of all, Matthew, Mark and John are the apostles. Paul and Luke were not apostles.
  
  For you believers, the offer still stands, show me where any scholar-i'm talking a person in a secular position at any University that will state on record that he/she believes the apostles actually wrote the NT. I've just finished 6 books on the subject, all of the writers were sceptical of the NT's orgins; everyone of them agreed that the apostles didn't write the NT; everyone of them said the NT was filled with errors.
  
  smellsgood: Either the books were written by sadly historically ignorant folks, or men who were distorting history to support their own philosophy.
  
  I don't like it when authors are blatantly historically innaccurate or ignorant, but they aren't barred from publishing their books.
  
  Can you give a specific idea of whom they DO claim to have written Matthew, Mark and John please...then I'll better be able to take them to task.