Where are the references to Asaph/Asa in the Hebrew Bible? --Peter Kirby 02:22, 21 Aug 2005 (CDT)
Peter, I wonder if we could try to make some valuable reference resources available here such as Metzger's Textual Commentary? The CD/download is only $ 35. Maybe we could get a Group license, or pay per user deal, or restrict usage to here or passwords or some combination?
- Hi, Joseph,
- While I'd love to get Metzger's here (as well as several other sources), that deals with Site Licensing fees, which can get very expensive very quickly. Additionally, I'm not sure of the Wiki software can deal with restricted access, and I know that the software could not directly interface with the Logos Software package--it would require manually entering and cross-referencing each individual page.
- The final decision is Peter's, of course, but I think it would be more expense and aggravation than benefit.
- --JustinEiler 09:56, 26 Sep 2005 (CDT)
Broad discussions of the various texts and manuscripts (such as the discussion on this verse of "TR v. Other Manuscripts") really don't fit into a specific verse page. Would the users here be interested in running this discussion on a separate page?
--JustinEiler 22:41, 23 Nov 2005 (CST)
Not really. This page should stand as an example of the shenanigans involved when skeptics assume liberal unbelieving scholarship as their starting point, and then fight against the text that nobody defends as truly inerrant. And they pretend they are actually finding an error in the historic Bible. Notice how Joe never even mentioned that the no-problem excellent NT reading was the reading of the historic Bibles, such as the King James Bible/Geneva/Tyndale, as he hid that in a more arcane Stephanus/TR reference.
There is no real dialog with skeptics on this stuff anyway, as they simply prefer the duckshoot text, for obvious reasons. Generally their actual ideas are that everything is fabricated and forged anyway, so the concept of a true original is in reality meaningless to them. What is the significance of a supposed 'original' forged and fabricated by another author in a foreign land 50-100 years later,as per their theories. Makes no sense.
They simply play textual critic, trumpeting the corrupt Aleph and B, because it gives them an easy target, the modern version WH/NA text, which are full of obvious blunders. Ergo, they will simply rehash the arguments of 'modern scientific textual critics' as if they were their own, quite unconvincingly.
There are real debates on these issues, such as when Thomas Holland or Maurice Robinson disassemble various modern textual concepts from the Hort/Aland/Metzger/Wallace/Ehrman crew, but the mythicist skeptic pretending to really have a belief in that regard is something of a joke.
If they really want to be mentschalas, they should section off such attacks in a special section ---
"NT Errors in the Modern-Version Alexandrian Texts (NIV, NAS, ESV, etc)"
That would take care of the issue properly, and avoid any confusion, and the necessity to reinvent the wheel when this comes up time and again.
(On JW's arguments forum I ran into this, and it became tedious to reply to all the modern version errors he would cook up).
18.104.22.168 06:17, 8 Dec 2005 (CST) Steven Avery, firstname.lastname@example.org