Lon, in post #56 you answered my question about Fred Price. Thank you.
His "incomplete sentences" were completions of his corrections to your post, and were meant to be read as such.
I bet you didn't even bother to look at his quote of your post when you read his post.
:nono: You haven't corrected me on TOL. You've asked for clarifications but misread a lot. With Doser, the three ellipses meant he was continuing your thoughts. IOW, he was completing your sentences with the addition/correction.No, he didn’t use complete sentences Lon, and as an educated person you should know this. I hate to be “that” guy, but again I must correct you.
Proper sentence structure requires the use of capital letters at the beginning of each sentence Lon, what okdoser did was write in incomplete sentences....which is the same thing as saying “not using sentences.” FWIW.
Okay, he missed an "I" for his first to count as a complete sentence. In the second, take of 'and then suddenly' because it was a stutter keeping it from being a well-constructed sentence, but it was yet a sentence. He also should not have used the three extra ellipses, just a period at that end, but then you are merely talking about formatting, he did frame a complete thought.corrected your flawed analogy:
Originally Posted by Guyver
Lon, if you were able to successfully ... complete your course of study and residency to become a certified ... doctor, practice many years, become a reputable expert in your field...then suddenly ....
and then suddenly reject modern medicine and start treating patients with leeches and hex signs, burning smudge and chanting sacred chants over the ill ....
Originally Posted by Guyver
... do you think you would be suddenly unqualified in your field?
yes, of course
Yes. That'd be along the thread premise :up:Lon, in post 57 you mentioned Amy Grant again. Let’s just forget Amy Grant, and move on. Let’s get to the real issue. The real issue is variations with and among New Testament manuscript writings. Now, if I read you correctly regarding this point...you take issue with Dr. Ehrmans claims regarding this point, and you have criticized the information he has provided as “not true.” Is that correct?
Assuming it is....then all we have to do is research that piece. Let us see if we can find factual information that will corroborate his claims, or if they should be refuted. Does that sound fair enough? I should have time to research the topic later this afternoon and I will be happy to report back what I have discovered.
Would you like to do the same?
Yes, there are variations. No, not hundreds of thousands by everyone's count. There are only a few hundred thousand partial manuscripts out there. Next, variations are mostly words missing (this sentence misses 'the' and you hardly notice and it certainly isn't 'misquoting Jesus' worthy). The hundreds of thousands isn't in the variants, but also in quotes of the ECFs. They are saying that often the ECF's quoted differently than the manuscripts and these account for a lot of these counted (not actual text variations, but 'quote' variations).Lon, I didn't hear back from you, but I went ahead and researched the topicSpoiler
Let's look again:
I think you sufficiently grasp the point so this is all academic. It really doesn't move the thread along. Perhaps it'll help with moving along from here to have it addressed. -Lon
Doser does not use complete sentences. It seems people around here besides myself don’t understand this point, which I find perplexing.
Lon, in posts 36, 38, 40, and 47 (by my computers rendering) okdoser used sentence fragments to communicate.
Here is an exact quote of what he said in post 47 which demonstrates that he doesn’t even know what a complete sentence is. I quote.
“here’s a complete sentence for you: you’re an idiot.”
Anyone who has studied the English language to at least the third grade level should be able to understand why that is improper.
Doser said (expanded the contractions to make it easier for anyone above a third grade level to read:
"Here is a complete sentence for you: you are an idiot."
Please show how that entire string of words is not a sentence (and a compound sentence at that).
The first part has a subject: "sentence"
A verb: "is"
That's literally all that is needed for a complete sentence. But there's even a predicate: "here"
And the second part has a subject: "You"
And a verb: "are"
And a predicate: "idiot"
Who's the real idiot, Guy, you or doser?
My money's on you.
You just called me an idiot
and you would like me to respond?
Wow. OK. Those are not sentences because they do not begin with a capital letter.
That’s it. It really is that simple.
You gave him a capital letter to make it a complete sentence.
Kinda like the guys who’ve changed the Bible. Sometimes they edit the text to make it correct, and they don’t even know they did it...as you have just done.
JudgeRightly, based on your post above, you should never call someone an idiot. And, your research skills are terrible.
In the ENGLISH language, a sentence is only proper if it begins with a capital letter.
Try again. You obviously failed grammar in Grammar School.
Why so quick to such judgments? It isn't easy to follow AND it is written in Greek! I simply wasn't assuming you could read Greek!What do you mean if I can follow Lon? Why would it be hard for me to follow that point? I know how to read Lon. If I didn’t know better, and I don’t; I’d consider that a veiled insult.
A PhD? Great. Both Hebrew and Greek? Don't veil it. You don't 'read' for comprehension like one who has a higher degree than I do. Grades were all good too? It doesn't matter, but something isn't synching here. You are linking to Googled websites as well. The MA and PhD world is a whole different set of websites that I rarely bring to TOL (mostly laymen but great studiers). Daniel Wallace has a great response article to Ehrman along the laymen circle, but he's got the Phd. A PhD that isn't in theology doesn't help much here.Lon, based on the qualifications you have outlined in this thread, I’m going to inform you that I am actually more formally educated than you are.
No, they really don't. Do you have your copy of the Greek text with the variants handy?://bible.org/article/gospel-according-bartNow, regarding your actual point. Yes, the vast majority of descrepancies are in single word variations. Yet, many of these errors change the intended meaning of the text. So, that is one problem. Now, let us move on the the real issue.
Will get to this later, I'm out of time. :e4e:Some of these variations show vast changes to the text, demonstrating that the Bible has literally been rewritten by unknown authors. I will offer two passages for discussion.
1. The woman taken in adultery.
2. The last chapter of Mark.
Please elaborate on your understanding regarding the passages above and how they do/do not show that the text of the Bible has been altered at will by unnamed authors.