Christians need not worry or bother too much about misrepresentations concerning 1 John 5 and especially that which is known as "the Johanine Comma" --- further infomation on the passage already exists on a couple of threads; below is link to one examplle.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-497445.0.html#msg6575922

I think that there were quite alot of responses on that thread that addressed your comments, and more importantly, that which you cited in teh first place did not in any way dispose of the fact of the illegitimate insertion.

But any how.

^^^You see why more and more people realise it is a waste of time discussing with you? You've made or given no proof, yet you speak of "illegitimate insertion"! That is fraudulent or at least daft. Was it inserted at all? By whom? When? If it was inserted what made the insertion "illegitimate"?

An honest and true "intellectual" commentator would address these before making the kind of conclusive statements that you made.

Again, I say that it is a waste of time bothering with your kind of approach. Even now I responded for the sake of people who may be misled by such fraud or intellectual poverty otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time.

Wow, such powerful insults from a goodly christian on Good Friday. I have not and I will not insult you sir. It surprises me however that the mere presentation of a contrary view is sufficient to elicit such insults from you. Honestly this is teh problem I have with you guys. You sit on your high "christian" "moral" horse but have no hesitation responding to the simple presentation of a contrary view with unnecessary insults. That is not very "christian" you know, nor is it mature. If you have a disagreement with teh view I have expressed, you may set out your rational basis for such disagreement without reverting to insults. That only gives the impression of frustration. As though you find my contrary views so annoying that you must give a knee jerk reaction by spewing insults. That is hardly an "intellectual" response.

As regards the tiresomely repeated line about "so many people" having distaste for me: I am certain that you can be honest with yourself in that I have not come accross as one who is courting anybody's favour. I don't give a hoot, sir!

You say I provided no proof regarding 1 John 5 v 7. The truth is that I did. Any body can pick up the KJV and read it today. And then immediately compare it with the same verse in ANY modern version of the bible. Those words have been deleted from modern versions. That is undeniable.

That is proof. Everything else is just escapism. Since you desire it, i will provide further reading on the subject for the sake of other readers.

Happy Easter, Enigma.

^^^^And that is your proof? Your case is worse than I thought.

By the way, what you call insults was just telling youof the kind of preamble or premise required before making certain "weighty" conclusions --- if you want to be taken as a serious and honest person. It is a standard expectation --- nothing more.

An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture is a dissertation by the English mathematician and scholar Sir Isaac Newton. First published in 1754, 27 years after his death, it claimed to review all the textual evidence available from ancient sources on two disputed Bible passages: 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16.

Newton describes this letter as "an account of what the reading has been in all ages, and what steps it has been changed, as far as I can hitherto determine by records",[1] and "a criticism concerning a text of Scripture".[2] He blames "the Roman church" for many abuses in the world[1] and accuses it of "pious frauds".[2] He adds that "the more learned and quick-sighted men. as Luther, Erasmus, Bullinger, Grotius, and some others, would not dissemble their knowledge".[3]

In the King James Version Bible, 1 John 5:7 reads:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Using the hand picked writings of the early Church Fathers, the Greek and Latin manuscripts and the testimony of the first versions of the Bible, Newton claims to have demonstrated that the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," in support of the Trinity doctrine, did not appear in the original Greek Scriptures. He then attempts to demonstrate that the purportedly spurious reading crept into the Latin versions, first as a marginal note, and later into the text itself. He noted that "the Æthiopic, Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, and Slavonic versions, still in use in the several Eastern nations, Ethiopia, Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Muscovy, and some others, are strangers to this reading".[4] He argued[5] that it was first taken into a Greek text in 1515 by Cardinal Ximenes on the strength of a late Greek manuscript corrected from the Latin. Finally, Newton considered the sense and context of the verse, concluding that removing the interpolation makes "the sense plain and natural, and the argument full and strong; but if you insert the testimony of 'the Three in Heaven' you interrupt and spoil it."[6] Today most versions of the Bible omit this verse, or retain it as only a marginal reading.

[1 Timothy 3:16The shorter portion of Newton's dissertation was concerned with 1 Timothy 3:16, which reads (in the King James Version):

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Newton argued that, by a small alteration in the Greek text, the word "God" was substituted to make the phrase read "God was manifest in the flesh." instead of "He was manifest in the flesh." He demonstrated that early Church writers in referring to the verse knew nothing of such an alteration.[7]

Summary of both passages
Newton concludes: "If the ancient churches in debating and deciding the greatest mysteries of religion, knew nothing of these two texts, I understand not, why we should be so fond of them now the debates are over."[8] It was only in the nineteenth century that Bible translations appeared 'correcting' these passages. Modern versions of the Bible usually omit the addition to 1 John 5:7, but some place it in a footnote, with a comment indicating that 'it is not found in the earliest manuscripts'.[9] Modern translations of 1 Timothy 3:16 now typically replace "God" with the correct "He".[10]

Historical background
Newton did not publish these findings during his lifetime, likely due to the political climate. Those who wrote against the doctrine of the Trinity were subject to persecution in England. As late as 1698 the Act for the Suppression of Blasphemy and Profaneness made it an offense to deny one of the persons of the Trinity to be God, punishable with loss of office and employment on the first occasion, further legal ramifications on the second occasion, and imprisonment without hope for bail on the third occasion. Newton's friend William Whiston (translator of the works of Josephus) lost his professorship at Cambridge for this reason in 1711. In 1693 a pamphlet attacking the Trinity was burned by order of the House of Lords, and the next year its printer and author were prosecuted. In 1697 Thomas Aikenhead, an eighteen-year-old student charged with denying the Trinity, was hanged at Edinburgh, Scotland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Historical_Account_of_Two_Notable_Corruptions_of_Scripture

Please people: note the gruesome end that met those who disputed these manipulations of scripture. People have died harrowing deaths for these corruptions of scripture and we are here comfortable enough to languidly declare that. . . .it does not matter. . . who wrote these things. . .

Where is our conscience?

So where is the proof of "illegitimate insertion" even in the above?

Enigma:

^^^^And that is your proof? Your case is worse than I thought.

Enigma:

So where is the proof of "illegitimate insertion" even in the above?

It is rather unfortunate that your "intellectual" style of debating things appears to be to stare them in the face and declare that they simply do not exist. It is obvious to me that you will wine and dine on excuses about the Comma Johanneum and still wind up saying nothing about what is a clear interpolation. For this reason I will not seek to convince you, for you obviously already know the truth in your heart.

I will rather seek to convince the objective non-partisan reader and for the sake of such a reader I will repeat the verses here in full, and he can decide from himself if it is not obvious that simething has been interpolated.

The full text of the King James version –


1 John 5:6   This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

1 John 5:7   For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

  1 John 5:8   And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The full text of the New International Version –

6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

7 For there are three that testify:

8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

Readers, please check out the difference in the verse 7 of each version. There is a huge difference. Verse 7 of the KJV reads –

1 John 5:7   For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Whereas same verse in the NIV reads –

7 For there are three that testify:

So please, after you may have called me fraudulent and daft on Good Friday, I guess it is left to the reading public to decide who is being fraudulent here.

Unless the question can be answered: WHY HAVE MODERN VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE REMOVED THOSE EXTRA TRINITARIAN WORDS IN VERSE 7?

No answer to this question from Enigma. Only insults.

In all of this, just remember that the biggest point is that many people were tortured and murdered for disputing what later was proved to be a latter addition. Thus it will be callous of us to say. . . it does not matter who wrote these things. . . .

And so I ask again: where is our conscience? ? ?

Readers -

Please read the KJV version for yourselves here -

http://kjvbible.net/cgi-bin/search.cgi

And then read the NIV version for yourselves here -

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+5&version=NIV

Virtually ALL modern versions go with the NIV, having expunged those extra trinitarian words in the KJV version.

WHY DID THEY EXPUNGE THOSE WORDS?

The words have been found to be missing from the earliest manuscripts available.

Now, for disputing those same words, hundreds have been tortured and murdered - - -

And yet we have the nerve to say - - "it doesn't matter who wrote those words" ? ? ? ?

That is insensitive to those who died because of those exact words written by somebody

Ha ha, "the objective non- partisan reader trick" as expected ----- very predictable.

OK let me too say something to "the objective non-partisan reader"  ---- especially what might be expected of someone who wants to be taken seriously. Such a person will will say something along these lines.

1. We do not have the original manuscript (we call it "autograph" of 1 John.
2. We cannot therefore say conclusively or absolutely that the Johannine Comma was not originally in the the autograph.
3. Some manuscripts (usually more recent) include the Comma
4. Many manuscripts and usually older manuscript do not have the comma
5. There is thus some reason to sugget that the Comma was an addition to the autograph
6. This is  not conclusive however
7. There are any number of reasons why something which was in the autograph may not appear in later copies even though the passage in question is of great importance
8. Even if the Comma was inserted, there is no evidence that its inserrtion was capricious (I wonder what you mean by "illegitimate" anyway; I doubt even you know what you mean by a word used rather thoughtlessly)
9. In any event and in fairness the Comma is an indication of something that Christians believed from a very early time in Christianity.

Now the honest person will acknowledge this much ---- even if they then maintain that in their opinion the Comma was inserted and they believe that it was inserted capriciously or "illegitimately" (whatever "illegitimately" means)

Excellent, thanks for repeating what I have said.

I am happy to go away and rest my case "for the objective reader" on your honest admission here -

Enigma:


4. Many manuscripts and usually older manuscript do not have the comma
5. There is thus some reason to sugget that the Comma was an addition to the autograph

These are more than sufficient admissions for me.

Do spare some thought for those killed on this account, and maybe then reflect on whether or not the writers matter.

Thank you and Happy Easter again.

Deep Sight, I hope you have read the message I have for you. Furthermore, I have 'ressurected' the sequel to my (controversial) topic, 'Atheism Is A Religion'.

Best Regards,
Uyi Iredia

Enigma:

Ha ha, "the objective non- partisan reader trick" as expected ----- very predictable.

If I had a thousand gbams, I would give them to you.

Pastor AIO:

In my humble the writer is criticizing the pseudo-scholarship that passes for biblical scholarship. He cites his experience as an editor in a publishing firm, and demonstrates how impossible it is to unravel which specific element of a piece of literature came from which source. There is an awful lot of scholarship that revolves around this whole J, E, P, D categorization.

  Excellent summary. Lets continue . . .

I find it quite suspect too for the simple fact that if the tanakh was edited to make it seem like it was from one source then it was done very badly. The writer/editor of Genesis for instance must have been blind or silly to not realise that at the very beginning he gives 2 accounts for the creation of the world that contradictory. I don't think he was silly, I think it was intentional. it is the intention that I think scholarship would be more rewarding if it tried to find why.

   Gbam for you sir. And your point that it would perhaps be more profitable if scholars attempted to explain the why is well taken.

[b]What was the motives in compiling the bible. Was it to give an historical account, or has his intention been misconstrued?[/b]If the writer was trying to be dubious and pull the wool over our eyes then surely he could do a better job smoothing the cracks over the bits that refer to Jahweh and the bits that refer to Elohim or El.

*sigh* unfortunately questions (as Mr Hazony alludes to) that we will probably never have answers too.

---

I don't know how the Islamists thought they could get some mileage out of this thread for exercising their futilities. It is a fact that Mohammad could neither read or write and that the Koran was written after his death and there were various versions of it.
What puzzles me is whether or not Mohammad actually communicated with Gabriel face to face, with familiarity, or not. If he did and it wasn't that he was just imagining the interaction then I remain puzzled cos I cannot fathom how after such familiarity he could fail to tell the difference between Jibril and Satan. Can they be that similar? How come the Koran became infected with Satanic verses.

Lol . . . Pastor, you're looking for trouble oh

Enigma:

Going back to the line below

"Language is fluid and flexible, the product of the vagaries of the human soul."

Even individual words can evidently be used in various ways with different meanings or shades of meaning which may depend on context.

1. Take the word "authority" and its use in the following contexts

(a) Einstein was an authority on the theory of relativity
(b) the case of Donoghue v Stevenson is an authority on the meaning of "neighbour" in law
(c) the lecturer concluded on the position of the law on his own authority
(d) Jesus taught as one who had authority
(e) Christians believe in te authority of the Bible

2. Consider the word "cleave" which could mean quite opposite things i.e. either coming together or parting.

Noted. Rewind back to your last thread on authority of scripture . . . recall PastorAIO's comment about what "authority" means in the first place - and how it can mean differently to each of us.

Thinking on all this . . . merely re-emphasizes the daunting task of handling the Word correctly. With the complexities of expression and evolution of language, there are so many potholes and slippery slopes to get it wrong - may God help us.

LagosShia:

i have told JeSoul that she should open another thread so we can discuss the Quran if she has any doubt or evidence against it.but she said its not a challenge.

My dear, it wasn't a challenge - I tried to explain what I meant by that question. But then, I think I might take you up on your offer of opening a thread . Sweetnecta, I'll be expecting you too bro.

Dear DeepSight, are you aware of the fact that the article that we are discussing was written by a Jew and that he was referring specifically to the Jewish scriptures, the Tanakh.  And his arguments are addressed at the sub-categorization of the Tanakh to 4 sources, J, E, P and D.  He discusses why he thinks that such scholarship is nothing but an exercise in futility. 

Please can you demonstrate to us how what you've written below and elsewhere pertains to the thrust of his argument. 

He does not say that he accepts that moses wrote the pentateuch. What he says is that he doubts the claims for JEPD.

Reason tells me to be open to the idea that somebody else had a hand in it. And there are definitely a few glitches in the text that back up those suspicions - notably the last eight verses of Deuteronomy, which describe Moses’ own death.


But try as I might, I just can’t believe that the Five Books of Moses were written by J, E, P and D – the four main authors whose oral traditions, biblical scholars say, were cobbled together to make the Torah.

Deep Sight:

In addittion I might specifically say that a particular aspect that is indeed worrisome is the undeniable fact that there were deliberate insertions within scripture with a view towards advancing specific dogmas - and some of these turned out to be controversial to the extent of leading to many violent deaths of people.

An eminent example is -

1 John 5:6

6. This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost [NKJV: Holy Spirit]: and these three are one.
8. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The words in bolded blue above, which remain till this day within the KJV, have been found to be absent from the oldest manuscripts, and as such have been deleted from virtually ALL modern versions of the bible. Do not take my word for it. Check it out yourself.

Those words were a deliberate and later insertion designed to advance the Trinity doctrine.

What the OP fails to recognize is that what this shows is that the text has contained several and differring insertions, deletions and some good degree of engineering. Now, none of that may be relevant if it is not significant in degree, but what shall we say when, as in the instance I have cited, the alteration advances specifically controversial dogma?

That dogma is one of the pillars of reluigious disagreement between christians and other groups, and amongst christians through the centuries. This has actually accounted for the very violent death of many hundreds of thousands of people.

When we realize that such deliberate insertions have been the source of mindless and deadly controversies which in centuries past led to people being burned for heresy, it then beats the imagination that the OP can contend that "it does not matter who wrote the bible."

And it is even less helpful, when these issues are raised, for the OP to retreat in a most unseemly fashion into unnecessary arrogance, grandstanding imbued with insults and the like. One then wonders whether the OP merely desired people to read the article and nod in dazed agreement with everything therein. If that was the desire of the OP, then the OP needn't post such on a public forum.

I would have liked to see the OP forget about my distasteful personality and address these issues directly. Otherwise I humbly suggest that the OP deploys her powers as a moderator to delete or lock this thread, since it is not intended to accomodate contrary opinion?

Pastor AIO:

Dear DeepSight, are you aware of the fact that the article that we are discussing was written by a Jew and that he was referring specifically to the Jewish scriptures, the Tanakh.  And his arguments are addressed at the sub-categorization of the Tanakh to 4 sources, J, E, P and D.  He discusses why he thinks that such scholarship is nothing but an exercise in futility. 

Please can you demonstrate to us how what you've written below and elsewhere pertains to the thrust of his argument.  

He does not say that he accepts that moses wrote the pentateuch. What he says is that he doubts the claims for JEPD.

  This I remarked to him earlier . . .

JeSoul:
  Perhaps you too haven't read and understood the article. Perhaps you might understand the level of weight & importance - in the grand scheme of personal faith - the author is giving to "content" vs. "scholarship" vs. "authorship" vs. "faith" vs. "belief" . . . and how all these factors are interacting within the context of article.

Chei, DeepSight has suffered here.

Off-point, un-objective, biased, out of context, displaying dilly dally and silly something too.

And all because he fears the Jewish Carpenter might be true too

^^^ The problem with you is that you simply will not pause to think, reflect and analyse these matters. It is sufficient for you, a pretext or any defense: to cling to your faith. Please see my next post. You have not even remotely grasped anything on this thread. Sadly, nor has the OP.

I will wait and see it but can tell you upfront that the problem with you is you are seemingly so scared that this has become a crusade to you - a crusade to wish away truth that has become a crusade to ridicule it or explain it away.

However and as evidenced by your comments at https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-652247.0.html, something tells you that you are wrong. Which is alright to us since none of us lays claim to infallibility. None except you, of course

@ Pastor AIO and Jesoul –


It seems to me that you have missed the core purpose of the article. What is obvious is that the writer –


1. Takes a look at the pitfalls of scholastic analysis of scripture


2. Recognizes that scholarship has its limitations in terms of tracing (reverse engineering) an already edited text


3. Surmises that the scholastic conclusions regarding such matters as the identity of supposed writers of scripture is inessential.

It is thus apparent that the overall conclusion is that a scholastic identification of the writers of scripture is needless: scripture anyway being a potent factor in our existence.

This central idea is what I state to you is wrong.

It surprises me that Pastor AIO talks about the fact that the author is a Jew and that he is analyzing the authourship of the Torah. This is because the author states very clearly both in his title and in his conclusion that he is speaking of the Bible, and within his article he uses the 5 books of Moses as an example to elucidate his points which I have enumerated above.

The author says -

Maybe that’s all right. After all, isn’t it enough to know that the book is really important, that it has inspired love and hate and introspection and war for thousands of years, that it is full of interesting stories and wisdom, poetry and song, contradiction and fancy and an unparalleled belief in the importance of human endeavor - in the possibility of a better world - despite the enduring and tragic weaknesses that every biblical hero carries on his or her back? That it is an indelible part of who we are?

And as such it is clear that the overall point he seeks to make is that it is inessential to worry about authorship of the books of the Bible. If that was not the overall point, he needn’t have used that word in the first place. It is simply obvious that in proving his point he uses as example the 5 supposed books of Moses from his standpoint as a Jew.

[b]What is most critical is that the foregoing is not even important. What is important is the principle he is elucidating – namely as I said:  that the scholastic conclusions regarding such matters as the identity of supposed writers of scripture is inessential.

Further it is more than obvious that the OP was deploying that principle as a bulwark against criticism of authorship of scripture. The OP (Jesoul)  is a Christian, so please do not try to insinuate she has particular interest only in the Torah. The intention was clearly to show that ALL scholastic criticism of SCRIPTURE is inessential. That is obviously the point in the OP - that is why she has presented us with the article written by a Jew on his defence of teh same subject matter.

It therefore beats the imagination that Pastor reverts talking about the 5 books of Moses. That is such an unbelievably escapist and off-the-mark cop out that it leaves me dumbfounded. Obviously such stupendously off-target analysis is what is swallowed by a nuclearboy, who is apparently not diligent enough to contemplate the issue properly before responding.

I am not moved by these. I am moved by strict logic.[/b]

For this reason I have sought to state within this thread and I emphatically state again: SUCH A PRINCIPLE IS DANGEROUS. And in this I refer to the clear principle which the OP tries to convey: namely that scholastic criticism of scriptural authorship is inessential.

I have given reasons above as to why I regard such thinking as dangerous. Let me summarize some of them here –

1. Scripture is tenaciously held on to because of its claim of Divine Inspiration. This is what makes people kill and die for scripture. If its authorship is false, that casts a HUGE pall of darkness of the claims of divine inspiration, and this would mean that the biggest bulwark of scripture: namely its claim to divine inspiration, is potentially dubious.

2. This naturally means that hundreds of thousands of people have staked their lives and the lives of others on claims that they would have viewed differently, if they had a different idea as to the authorship.


3. The same principle is extended to NT scripture. A clearly illegitimate insertion such as 1 Jn 5 v 7 has resulted in people being BURNT at the stake and hundred tortured and murdered for contesting its legitimacy. THIS CLEARLY GOES TO SHOW THAT THE ISSUE OF AUTHOURSHIP HAS COST LIVES: AND FOR THIS REASON THE PRINCIPLE BORNE OUT IN THE OP IS WRONG WHEN IT STATES THAT SUCH SCHOLASTIC RESEARCH AS TO AUTHORSHIP IS INESSENTIAL.

These are the issues friends.

We cannot read an article which argues an obvious and clear standpoint, and then bury our heads in the sand regarding the very dangerous effects that that very standpoint has delivered throughout History.

^A much much better attempt at the topic than anything you'd posted earlier. Now . . . if you're going to attribute any position to me, I'd like for you to quote me clearly and not inject your own assumptions. Thanks.

Moving on . . . the author is a Jew - PAIO pointed this out (i think) because you seemed fixated on 'the bible' and not really addressing the authors criticisms on scholarship work in regards to the Torah. As an overall point - the author extends these shortcomings he sees with scholarship in regards to the first few books, to all of the bible. You are right - and this point is lost on one (and infact bolded all thru the OP). PAIO was merely addressing the fact you hadn't previously addressed this. Then again Pastor, pls correct me if I'm wrong.

Deep Sight:

@ Pastor AIO and Jesoul –

It seems to me that you have missed the core purpose of the article. What is obvious is that the writer –

1. Takes a look at the pitfalls of scholastic analysis of scripture
2. Recognizes that scholarship has its limitations in terms of tracing (reverse engineering) an already edited text
3. Surmises that the scholastic conclusions regarding such matters as the identity of supposed writers of scripture is inessential.

It is thus apparent that the overall conclusion is that a scholastic identification of the writers of scripture is needless: scripture anyway being a potent factor in our existence.
This central idea is what I state to you is wrong.

  Now you're indeed talking. I don't think "inessential" is however the proper word there. While he sees these shortcomings as problematic, he in no way dismisses scholarship as completely irrelevant, but rather recognizes its shortcomings and chooses to work/believe/choose around them.
  I wish this was your first post. Merely state your disagreement and explain why you see things otherwise, instead of galloping in head first and declaring the writers position a "lie".

What is important is the principle he is elucidating – namely as I said:  that the scholastic conclusions regarding such matters as the identity of supposed writers of scripture is [b]inessential.[/b]

See my reply 2 paragraphs above.

Further it is more than obvious that the OP was deploying that principle as a bulwark against criticism of authorship of scripture. The OP (Jesoul)  is a Christian, so please do not try to insinuate she has particular interest only in the Torah. The intention was clearly to show that ALL scholastic criticism of SCRIPTURE is inessential. That is obviously the point in the OP - that is why she has presented us with the article written by a Jew on his defence of teh same subject matter.

Wrong. Again, see my reply 3 paragraphs above.

For this reason I have sought to state within this thread and I emphatically state again: SUCH A PRINCIPLE IS DANGEROUS. And in this I refer to the clear principle which the OP tries to convey: namely that scholastic criticism of scriptural authorship is inessential.

Again that is not what he says. Expressing doubts and pointing out shortcomings in scholarship does not amount to a complete dismissal of all scholarship as 'inessential'. Context DS. Context.

Isn't it the same guy that says this:

As with any field of research that tries to reconstruct the distant past, biblical scholars get things wrong on a daily basis. And that's OK: Getting things wrong is part of the nature of reconstruction. Whether you’re talking about the origins of galaxies, dinosaurs, ancient civilizations, medieval history or World War II, the conclusions of all historical research come with a big disclaimer: This is the best we’ve got so far. Stay tuned; we may revise our beliefs in a couple of years.

Does this sound like someone who thinks all scholarship is 'inessential'? but rather one who recognizes its shortcomings? and urges us to work/think/decide within those limits?

  As for the rest of your post, the same scriptures have been used as a weapon unto great love - as well as unto great destruction. It is the people who are handling the work - not the work itself.

Anyways, Happy Easter DS, Nuke and everyone else. I gats to go fellas.

I wish this was your first post

Have I been with thee so long and thou knowest me not?

Please you cannot claim that you did not know what I meant AND the position i described and canvassed in all my posts. It was clear. It is accusations that now force one to write what should have been a needless thesis to point out that which was already obvious.

HAPPY EASTER JESOUL.

nuclearboy:

Chei, DeepSight has suffered here.

Off-point, un-objective, biased, out of context, displaying dilly dally and silly something too.

And all because he fears the Jewish Carpenter might be true too 

Well, the posts showed the subtlety and sensitivity {where is Ralph Tresvant?} of a bulldozer being driven through a flower garden --- coming as they do did on Good Friday when Christians reflect on the sacrificial death of "the Jewish Carpenter"!

^^^ This is what is particularly sad. I want to ask you for just one second: cast away your preconceptions about me, and stop and ask yourself: what in the word did this thread have to do with Jesus Christ?

You see, if you will be searingly honest with yourself, you will see that it is you that has become rabidly paranoid and over-sensitive where you need not be.

Because the argument advanced within the OP was that scholastic criticism of the identity of biblical authours is inessential - and the argumenbt that I made against it was simply that such a position is wrong and dangerous. Dear Enigma, I implore you to serch yourself and see if there is anything anti-christian in such a very simple argument. INDEED there is nothing that should even excercise or annoy anybody therein - regardless of what side of the divide he stands on.

If you will reflect, you will see where you have been needlessly abusive over a purely academic matter that does not even invoke matters of doctrine.

@JeSoul; « #46 on: Yesterday at 02:52:20 PM »
[Quote]Quote from: LagosShia on Yesterday at 12:21:25 AM
i have told JeSoul that she should open another thread so we can discuss the Quran if she has any doubt or evidence against it.but she said its not a challenge.

 My dear, it wasn't a challenge - I tried to explain what I meant by that question. But then, I think I might take you up on your offer of opening a thread Smiley. Sweetnecta, I'll be expecting you too bro.[/Quote]i am sure that lagosshia is sufficient in doing the job. i am available to support him, however.

there is no word like 'islamist, muhammadan, jihadist, infidel, etc' that they muslims use for themselves, in the same way they use the word 'slave of Allah/God, believer, etc' and for others 'disbeliever, pagan, etc'. it is the enemy of islam that will say we are islamist, jihadist, we read koran, and we call people infidels'. unfortunately, like dick cheney succeeded in making yellow cake stick, the occidentals and the orientals have succeeded in even making the muslims see themselves in the matter that was imposed upon them.

is it when you pen something that you are the writer? what about when you dictate it and it is penned verbatim by one scribe? what if the scribes writing what you are saying to them to write are 4 in numbers and they wrote exactly what you asked, making therefore 4 originals to check against one another? are you still the writer if what you said 20 years was repeated to someone who paraphrased it as he wished, but not using the exact words he heard? what if the one who heard you say it then paraphrased it when he repeated your statement for the very time, not using your exact words, are the writer, still? what if the 'statement' attributed to you was not 100% from you in the first place whether it was made to be believed by the speaker and the listener/writer that those were your words, yet the final version is always generation, the current generation is not exactly the same as any generation before it, are you still the writer?

which of the many scenarios above has the likelihood of being unadulterated from you? is there a better confirmation than the one written by 4 scribes, all sitting in your presence, writing down what you dictated, each reading it back to you, as you collect it from them, bearing in mind that each has down exactly the same wording as they read it back, individually to you, and based on inspired divine guidance you have photographic memory what you said and what they individually wrote being the same thing?

which of the others can you trust to have 100% accuracy like the one with 4 scribes writing and reading back to you in the place? i am sure you are familiar with the idea that some individuals do ask others to pen letters that they which to write to their grand daughter in boston, as an example. if the 95 year old illiterate grandmother ask james who is a 20 year old university of ibadan student to pen such a loving letter. when the boston resident receive this mail delivered, reading it, if she wants to tell her husband who wrote her from nigeria, will she say i receive letter from james or from grandma in lagos? in reality whose pen hits the paper; james or grandma? when you see the penmanship, whose penmanship is it; james or grandma? in reality whose message or words are you reading?

muhammad [as] is the unlettered person asking 4 scribes in front of them to write in their own individual hand writing what he saying to them, at the same time. by divine providence, he was given photographic memory and when the individual scribe read back to him what he wrote, each scribe matches the others and matches what muhammad [as] dictated. if a final book was to be made out of what the scribes have written, any of their copies is sufficient as a source. each set is like a micro finch, a recorded film/data/speech. now we have 4 of them, exactly alike, as original and source to make a book.

can the book that is produced not be an original book as those sources of 4 from the scribes? did i mentioned that the community and muhammad never fail in any single day for 23 years period of revelation not to recite many parts if not all the Quran in their prayers, personal recitation, learning how to recite, or the meaning as it applies to their daily lives, or other reasons including mere meetings and gathering? the first book bind was commissioned and completed in the time of Abu Bakr, which was the immediate years after the passing of the messenger. it was easy to complete the book because they have 4 original masterpieces to simply copy from. but the community was also an added surety that what was the first book bind 'Quran' was already in the circulation, because it was already memorized in the lifetime of the messenger, and the rank of those who memorize it swell as the muslim community increases.

you will be defeated by lagosshia if you dare to take him up on what is outright defeat for you if you have any conscience. dont play the blind faith game. faith is not always blind especially proofs and evidences are readily available. The Justice of God is not blind. His Mercy is not blind, either. if it does matter to you what lie is when you see truth it will not matter to you because you will carelessly ignore it. May God help you from the attitude of 'it does not matter' Amin.

JeSoul:


Again that is not what he says. Expressing doubts and pointing out shortcomings in scholarship does not amount to a complete dismissal of all scholarship as 'inessential'. Context DS. Context.

It is surprising that you could have read my post and still say this. You misquote me. That is not what I said or argued. I never said that the authour dismissed "all scholarship as inessential." Rather I said at least FOUR times within that one post that the authour was argiung that scholastic criticism of the IDENTITY of biblical authours is inessential.

That is indisputably what he argued.

If I had been the one to misquote you so badly, you go on and on about how dishonest and vile I am. And yet you cannot show me where I said such a thing as that the authour dismissed all scholarship as inessential. I spoke specificallyt about the topic - to wit - identities of authours.

And I disputed that with the points in my posts. Such identities are essential especially in light of these - I said -

Deep Sight:
1.   Scripture is tenaciously held on to because of its claim of Divine Inspiration. This is what makes people kill and die for scripture. If its authorship is false, that casts a HUGE pall of darkness of the claims of divine inspiration, and this would mean that the biggest bulwark of scripture: namely its claim to divine inspiration, is potentially dubious.

2.   This naturally means that hundreds of thousands of people have staked their lives and the lives of others on claims that they would have viewed differently, if they had a different idea as to the authorship.

3.   The same principle is extended to NT scripture. A clearly illegitimate insertion such as 1 Jn 5 v 7 has resulted in people being BURNT at the stake and hundred tortured and murdered for contesting its legitimacy. THIS CLEARLY GOES TO SHOW THAT THE ISSUE OF AUTHOURSHIP HAS COST LIVES: AND FOR THIS REASON THE PRINCIPLE BORNE OUT IN THE OP IS WRONG WHEN IT STATES THAT SUCH SCHOLASTIC RESEARCH AS TO AUTHORSHIP IS INESSENTIAL.

And the foregoing remains indubitable.

nuclearboy:

Chei, DeepSight has suffered here.

Off-point, un-objective, biased, out of context, displaying dilly dally and silly something too.

And all because he fears the Jewish Carpenter might be true too

Come back here and recant. Show me what is off-point now!

Hehehe. Been here but down with a nasty fever so am real tired and preferred to just laugh. But in honor of my total love for you, Deep, I'll say I was pulling your boots.

Still, the particular scripture is basis for the faith of many. Once you discredit the authorship/source, you are basically saying the entire package is not trustworthy.

Now that is what we see in your posts. Question is this - assume I told you Mr Atolagbe wrote the book of John and Enigma told someone else it was Professor Ridwan. Tell me DeepSight, how does that change the contents which are inspirational in nature?

nuclearboy:



Hehehe. Been here but down with a nasty fever so am real tired and preferred to just laugh. But in honor of my total love for you, Deep, I'll say I was pulling your boots.

So sorry dear friend. I hope you feel better already.

Still, the particular scripture is basis for the faith of many. Once you discredit the authorship/source, you are basically saying the entire package is not trustworthy.

Indeed; though we needn't be so holistic and expansionary in our interpretation.

Now that is what we see in your posts. Question is this - assume I told you Mr Atolagbe wrote the book of John and Enigma told someone else it was Professor Ridwan. Tell me DeepSight, how does that change the contents which are inspirational in nature?

I stated in my very second post that we should take to the message and not the messenger. So it is very clear that we are not ignorant of that. The specific point is that in this particular matter, we are speaking if a text that claims divine inspiration. We must be honest when we agree that that claim of divine inspiration has led many to die for scripture or be killed for it, because they trust it completely. Now let us ask ourselves sincerely: would that absolute trust be there if the adherents were properly informed about these cases of doubtful authourship within scripture?

And this is not to even speak of the cases of illegitimate insertions and interpolations of controversial dogma which led many to stake their lives and ended up being burnt, tortured and murdered. Do you really think anybody would stake his life if he knew the script he was dying for to be of doubtful authourship: ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT THE BASIC MESSAGE OF LOVE IS NOT WHAT WAS CONTROVERSIAL: BUT INSERTIONS OF DOGMA SUCH AS THE ONE I REFERRED ENIGMA TO? ? ?

For this reason, the argument within the OP remains dangerous and wrong when it infers that scholastic criticism of the IDENTITY of biblical authours is inessential.

And you must all pardon me for a little pettiness. Sometimes I just shake my head when people dance around in circles over simple logic, and even get to the point of gloatingly patting each other on the back - all on account of a common paranoia about what is being discussed.

Look at this -

Pastor AIO:

Dear DeepSight, are you aware of the fact that the article that we are discussing was written by a Jew and that he was referring specifically to the Jewish scriptures, the Tanakh.  And his arguments are addressed at the sub-categorization of the Tanakh to 4 sources, J, E, P and D.  He discusses why he thinks that such scholarship is nothing but an exercise in futility. 

- - - which tragically sought to infer that the article in the OP was directed at the Tanakh.

Then look at this -

JeSoul:

As an overall point - the author extends these shortcomings he sees with scholarship in regards to the first few books, to all of the bible. You are right - and this point is lost on one (and infact bolded all thru the OP).

- - - which correctly recoignises that the argument was not limited to the example from the Tanakh which was deployed.

Nuclearboy. . . .? ? ? ? ?

Sometimes one must really be worried.