₦airaland Forum

jesusjnr2020:
Well if that be the case, it's quite unfortunate because that's the only manuscript that you could use to prove to me that anything was added to or omitted from what was originally written by apostle John, because anything can happen along the way.

LordReed:
LoLz. This is so freaking funny. So the book was translated from manuscripts that were written more than 100years after the purported events but here you are almost 2000yrs later looking for the original. People 200yrs after didn't see the original talk more of you 2000yrs later. Good luck with that. LMFAO!

jesusjnr2020:
So tell me, what's the difference between between 2000 and 1800 years later? If that of 1800 years ago was available, why not that of 200 years earlier?

Moreover, were did the rewritten manuscripts originate from if not the original?

LordReed:
The original was not available 1800years ago.

They were written from copies of copies. They didn't have printing press or photocopy machine so every copy had to be made by hand. And they had to do that because the writing material they were using would deteriorate since they had no modern preservation techniques. So by the time P66 (the oldest surviving manuscript of the Gospel of John) was written, at least 150years had passed since the purported death of Christ, who knows how many times the copying process had already been done by then.

Also as you are suggesting the copies were made from the original so why is the oldest surviving copy not having the story?

jesusjnr2020:
So you agree they originated from the original manuscript of apostle John.

If they didn't have the story as some claim, it must be that it was omitted, hence the manuscripts with the story were generally accepted because it was as it should be. Remember those alive were closest to the generation of the eye witnesses of those things, so it's hard for them to easily accept those with the story if not true.

The only way to prove it wasn't in the original manuscript written by John is to provide the manuscript, if not park well oga , let me continue to see road with the Words of Jesus in the Bible which I believe was 100% inspired of God.

LordReed:
Of course there was an original but we have no access to it so you can't confirm what was or wasn't in it.

How can the one closest to the original not have the story then the newest one have it then you say it was removed from the older one. So where did they get it to add back to the newer one?

Also even if you as you suggest it was removed from the older one that still poses a problem, the scribes were editing the book.

jesusjnr2020:
There are obviously lots of questions, uncertainties regarding what happened in between, but the overwhelming belief is that what was translated into the Bible aligns with what was in the original manuscript of apostle John and this is where I stand.

LordReed:
LoLz! Exactly my point.

Meanwhile how ca you say "what was translated into the Bible aligns with what was in the original manuscript of apostle John" when you have never seen the original manuscript neither did the translators?

jesusjnr2020:
I said it's the overwhelming belief of those who were there at the time. Those closer to those closer to the eye witnesses themselves. That's also my position on this matter.

LordReed:
How can they be eyewitness 200years later?

jesusjnr2020:
Lol! You're funny oh. Eyewitnesses of eyewitnesses of eyewitnesses etc.

LordReed:
There is no such thing. Someone listening to an eyewitness is not themselves an eyewitness.

jesusjnr2020:
There can be an eyewitness that saw an eyewitness saying this.

jesusjnr2020:
There can be an eyewitness that saw an eyewitness saying this.

LordReed:
Sure but someone who is not an eyewitness listening to or reading the words of an eyewitness is not an eyewitness. The scribes copying the manuscripts 200 years later were not eyewitnesses.

jesusjnr2020:
Lol! You're still not getting it?

Who said anything about scribes?

I'm speaking of the human carriers/bearers of these stories from generation to generation, including the eyewitnesses of eyewitnesses of eyewitnesses of the eyewitnesses of the actual events according to my explanation. They were yet present at the time and the story in the manuscripts tallied with their general belief and tradition, hence their general acceptance of it.

LordReed:
Oga a person listening to an eyewitness who didn't see the event themselves is not an eyewitness, what part of that do you not understand.

It was scribes who did the copying, you think people went to school to learn how to read and write, like we do now, back then? No, they didn't that's why it was scribes who had learned how to read and write especially in Greek language which is what the oldest Gospel of John manuscripts were written in.

jesusjnr2020:
So why did you say "sure" when you don't agree that an eyewitness of an event can have an eyewitness when he's giving an account of the event?

Because I don't understand what you're still busy arguing about what I never said after you said "sure".

jesusjnr2020:
There can be an eyewitness that saw an eyewitness saying this.

LordReed:
Because I thought you were saying an eyewitness can listen to another eyewitness.

jesusjnr2020:
So an eyewitness of the event giving an account of what transpired is not an event in itself that could have an eyewitness?

LordReed:
That's not the word that is used to describe such a person.

jesusjnr2020:
The point is, is it wrong to call such a person, an eyewitness of the event where the account was given?

For instance, if it was against the law for such information to be shared, the person who saw it being shared is not an eyewitness?

jesusjnr2020:
The point is, is it wrong to call such a person, an eyewitness of the event where the account was given?

For instance, if it was against the law for such information to be shared, the person who saw it being shared is not an eyewitness?

LordReed:
It would be strange to say that someone who heard someone else describe an event is an eyewitness. We would say the person is a witness not an eyewitness. Eyewitness is usually reserved for someone who physically saw an event or action happen.

LordReed:
See this example: Your grandmother was an eyewitness to your birth. She decides to tell you about everything that happened and tells it so vividly its almost like you were there. Would you now refer to yourself as an eyewitness to your own birth?

jesusjnr2020:
Lol! You actually missed the whole point. Since you've given an example, let me use it to illustrate what I've been trying to say to you all this while if it would help. My grandmother was an eyewitness to my birth right according to the example, right? Now she decides to tell someone else about it, but I could see her while she was telling the person. That makes me an eyewitness to the event of my g-mummy sharing the story of my birth but not an eyewitness of my birth. My g-mummy sharing the story to someone else is an event on its own so it could have an eyewitness. In case you the person forgets about the event, g-mummy might call me and say, shebi, you saw (eyewitness) when I was telling this person the entails of your birth.

I'm really shocked though that you actually thought all along I was saying that someone who sees someone giving an eyewitness acount of an event automatically becomes an eyewitness of the event. I mean, who doesn't know that? I don't even know where you got that idea from because I never said such a thing. Eyewitness I spoke of was in the sense of the event where such information was shared by the eyewitness, not in the event that the sharer was an eyewitness of.

I hope you now gerrit so we can move on.

LordReed:
Because you said "Eyewitnesses of eyewitnesses of eyewitnesses" as though it was a chain of eyewitnesses to the original event.

jesusjnr2020:
Even at that. An eyewitness of an event is not the event itself.

ictplotter:
I challenge you to study the Quran and brings out a contradictions or human input error.

CodeTemplar:
When a king makes a pronouncement or decree, he doesn't have to be the one penning it in written form. This is what is happening here.
For those foolishly switching accounts to say Jesus' words are different from the Father's, the spirit of the father was the compiler of a combination of the words of Jesus as written by Holy Spirit inspired men, the written words of Holy Spirit inspired men and Gods words spoken directly to prophets and written by Holy Spirit inspired men(2 Peter 1:20). All three categories of words have the vouching of The Holy Spirit in common, written by men also and tested by the revealing fire of God.

Even Jesus in human form was saying "it is written, man shall not live by bread alone..." at some point. He didt say"a wiseman once said don't argue with fools". If the words of God written by men was being quoted verbatim by Jesus to escape the devil and his wiles, how can those words now be attributed as the words of men and not that of God?

Words are formed in the spirit realm whether we like it or not. Your words are not a product of the food you eat or the positions you sleep in or even the grade of water you drink but your spirit is the birth place of words. The heart part of your spirit.

It would have been very strange for God to appear in human form with a pen just to write His words with His own hands.
The King of kings needn't do that.

LordReed:
While I acknowledge you are trying to make an analogy, you fail to account for the fact that no one sees when the god is making any pronouncements and even now when we can virtually eternally memorialise an event, the god still fails to show up in person so we can capture the event on video.