In Reply to: Re: Thanks everyone posted by Observer on March 17, 2006 at 14:49:00:
Fred:
Good points.
One important thing is that textual criticism of the documents of both Old and New Testaments, but especially the New, is that the science, and it IS a true science, is about 300 years old. So, it is well established, as are other areas of Biblical archeology--nothing you'd hear about in TF, among the more bitter and angry exers among us, but well-established, even incontrovertable evidence, regardless of anyone's beliefs, ro the condition of their heart, or temporary impairment of their reason.
That means that the languages used were very clear and precise in their meanings (especially Koine, or common, Greek--versus Classic--it occupied the same place as American Business English does today in its own era).
My point is that, running the gammut from atheist to Bible-believing Christian (OPPOSITE of sub-christian TF doctrines)--if you allow them (the extant, or still-existing manuscripts) to speak for themselves, the doctrines of orthodox--"fundamentalist" in its original meaning, the truth about the documents historic transmission, and the fact that, despite the BS by false scholars referred to earlier (i.e.: Ehrman, by "Moonshiner", etc)--what was believed during the first four centuries is well established.
Simply not wanting to believe that is quite another issue; obviously.
Then, for a lot of us there are other issues, a lot of anger and hurt, sin we don't really want to let go of which makes us justify something untrue no matter what, and so on. Been there--was bitter, for a long time. Then I figured I at least better be honest.
'Bye for now--take care, Fred.
Sincerely,
OT2 (OldtimerToo)