Even further explaining myself here is aggravating. So truly, I am done. I will comment one last time to a couple of you, but I am not out to "WIN" any arguments/points. I said what I said and granted that I made a mistake or two, but now have to address what is really opinions of "my scholars versus your scholars." ABSOLUTELY THE LAST THINGS I WILL SAY ON THIS THREAD:
C'mon, Jer... don't be like that. Everyone who's posted on this board more than a couple/few times knows (or should know) that whatever they posted is subject to criticism, rebuttal, questioning, debate, what have you. If you don't WANT to comment any further, don't - we'll get it that you're done. But when you post comments like this, you're pretty much saying (1) "I can dish it out, but not take it, and (2) I WON'T take it from you low-lifes, regardless of whether you're right or wrong." If one can "see" the discussions as just that... discussions... and NOT a "contest" (as so many who display a certain personality type, including you, seem to do... then there is no NEED to "win"... or perception of having "lost." We're just discussing... "stuff," man.
AGuest, I have to say about the copy: "apples and oranges." I was mentioning a copy presenting the exact same style as that thing it copied from in order to date the copy and set a time limit for the original.
I actually think we're talking apples and apples, Jer... although perhaps MacIntosh vs. Red Delicious. I am saying that you are ASSUMING that a copy presents in the exact same style as the thing it copied from. And I posted links to show this (i.e., deviation from the thing copied, in word, style, AND presentation)... my point being that the fragment, for example, very well may NOT be in the same "style" as that which it copied FROM...
I was granting that the fragment, debateably, might move up the writing of the original. In that instance, I wasn't trying to insinuate (or mention at all) that the copy might have strayed from the original.
Yes, no, I understand that. I didn't address what a copy might insinuate as to a date of the original (or even the prior copy), at all. I was just trying to show, with a modern example, who copies DON'T present the exact same style as... well, you get my drift...
The idea of Greek originals written about people who were speaking Aramaic is a different matter. That's where the idea of straying comes in. I am not "assuming that people whose first language was Aramaic would write, originally, in GREEK."
No, you may not be... but MANY do. Hence, the debate over the original languages to begin with.
I am going along with the vast vast majority of people who looked into this by saying that those who wrote the Greek texts were writing about OTHER people who were speaking Aramaic.
Okaayyy...
They had to be relying on Holy Spirit or stories to do that.
I would wager stories... or the ability to speak both...
If I wrote about something AGuest said, and I wrote in Chinese, I would have to do so by translating what you said in English.
Yes, okay... I think. I mean, if what I think you mean is what you mean... . No, seriously, I get it. But again, I think you're overlooking something. For example, the assumption that you ACCURATELY translated in the first place... or, alternatively, translated what YOU understood (which may not have been accurate) or what you wanted the "Chinese" to GET, even though you knew what I said. A good example of that is the "Trinity/Holy Spirit" teaching. Someone along the way either believed that teaching... or wanted others to, for whatever reason. It's a falsehood, though. Many can't SEE that, however, because they have SUCH faith in the infallibility OF the writings that present it. Even though the ones they're SUPPOSED to be listening to... whether technically (through the writings) or literally... the Prophets and/or Christ, depending on their faith... SAYS the scribes would screw it up.
If people want to say that Holy Spirit provided the translation, then there are issues of how the various texts don't agree on details.
I agree. And, if you've paid attention to anything I've posted on it, you know I don't say that. To the contrary, I have shared that the NT is NOT inspired, with the exception of the Revelation given to John. Heck, I've even shown were at least one writer says why, how, and for whom HE wrote... and "Holy Spirit" isn't mentioned anywhere. Another book is attributed to someone who, if those who so attributed paid even the minutest of attention to would know... did not.
If people want to say that the writers didn't make up the conversations, but translated from eye-witness written accounts in Aramaic, well.... that adds another layer of originals that we cannot find today.
It does. And that was my point: that the copies are copies... maybe even of copies (in fact, I'm sure they are... because it's not like ONE copy was made of each; SEVERAL copies were made so that they could be dispersed). So, if, say 30 copies are made of ONE... so that, say, each disciple could have a copy... then 10 of each of those so that they could share them with congregations during their sojourns... then 10 of each of those so that the "older men" of those congregations could have one... or someone with enough money to BUY one... well, you can see what COULD result. The fact that the "oldest" KNOWN only dates back to, say, 100-150 C.E. has no bearing on what came BEFORE those. Other than, perhaps, to help us see/understand that prophesy may have started coming true as to "wicked men arising among you," and those "who say they are Jews but are actually a synagogue of Satan," etc.
If people want to say anything about the original documents, how can we debate over things that we have never seen?
Because that which came after them alludes to them, either directly or indirectly? For example, the letters to the Corinthians. Most of us have never seen the FIRST letter... but we can know it existed... and what it was about... due to mention of it in the SECOND letter (1 Corinthians). True, we may know the actual words and content, but we can certainly debate whether its purpose (to tell the Corinthians to "quit mixing" with fornicators, etc.) was valid and "christlike." How? Based on what Christ was also recorded to have said, sure. Or... by means of holy spirit. Which (great debate) is apparently what actually happened.
Now, some might not have the patience for that... or might not feel they know enough to participate... but that's them, isn't it?
Since I am not debating, I did not read all your links. Its apples and oranges again.
Actually, it isn't, but without having looked at them you wouldn't know that. There's another saying I love: "Often time the search... proves more profitable than the goal." Meaning, sure, there's a honking diamond that you're after... but why pass up all the other precious stones on the way? Won't you end up even richer by gathering those, too?
I was referring to the Greek copies available later to "US" of events that occurred with Aramaic-speaking people.
Yes, which copies you insinuated present "in the exact same style as that thing it copied". Unless I misunderstood you. I don't think I did, though, seeing as you reiterated it here.
There may well have been additional layers in-between, but it may just be that Paul wrote in Greek, so people adding to his writings wrote in Greek when they made these things up.
I don't dispute that Paul wrote in Greek. I think I even stated that I agreed with that; however, I also stated the tendency of copyists (scribes) to "do their own thing," at times, too. And so that I wasn't just SAYING that... gave you ample modern-day example.
It may also be that "selling" one's writings necessitated writing in Greek. There may be an answer to that, but I won't be pursueing it.
Could be, but, yeah, I won't pursue that, either. THAT, to me, would be... well, not just oranges, but maybe even pineapples! Whole different bowl of fruit!
If something else I said is debated, and you feel you won because of my silence, congratulations.
Sigh. What is WITH you folks who think that when/because one's POV is accepted... one has won? Just as many accept, reject/dismiss. Silence by one doesn't mean the other has "won," dear one. It means, at least to ME... that the silent one either (1) has nothing more to say on the matter, (2) may be looking stuff up and will get back to the discussion later, (3) got the point - but not necessarily that they agree with it, or (4) doesn't give a hoot. At least, that who I interpret such "silence."
Iron sharpens iron, Jer. Sure, in running your knife against another blade you might get cut... perhaps severely. If you use it, it can get sharper. If you never take it out of the sheath, though, or take it out but only cursorily wield it... you're more liable to be run through. Or hurt yourself.
When thoughts, opinions, positions, speculations, etc., such as you presented are posed, I may be compelled to present what I understand, yes. But in doing so I learn more... when I am wrong as well as when I'm right. So, I welcome discussion. The only time I didn't, in my entire life... was when I was a JW. No one was SUPPOSED to discuss... and by that, I mean challenge... what I shared. As you stated to dear PSacto (peace to you, dear one!)... back then it was "I said what I said." Hasn't that changed for you, yet, Jer?
Again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA