What you don't know is that without these origianls, one cannot make any real conclusions about "inspiration" and these manuscripts.
Logical "Non sequitur"
If this was so then ALL the "scholars might as well go golfing, for this is what they attempt to do, reconstruct the Original Text! If your statement was true, it makes this impossible. Therefore, left to stand, you just decimated the "scholars" and your own arguments for Textual Criticism - text reconstruction at one fell swoop!.
If this was so then ALL the "scholars might as well go golfing, for this is what they attempt to do, reconstruct the Original Text! If your statement was true, it makes this impossible. Therefore, left to stand, you just decimated the "scholars" and your own arguments for Textual Criticism - text reconstruction at one fell swoop!.
With Thousands of copies of copies of copies that agree in toto, we surely can make real conclusions about the text.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/2/2005 1:55:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dear JD,
Please be notified that the FIRST copy of scripture, written by the FIRST writer (ie: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) was THE ORIGINAL. There definitely WAS one, whether you have a copy in your sweaty little hand or not.
Love, Izzy
This makes me think Lance is right. If there were no "originals," there would have been no Bible ( I can't believe I am having to point this out). OF COURSE I KNOW THIS. What you don't know is that without these origianls, one cannot make any real conclusions about "inspiration" and these manuscripts.
JD
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
