(May 2, 2015 at 8:42 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(May 2, 2015 at 7:19 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Fixed your link there, Esq.
Danke. I gotta start making a habit of testing those things before I post 'em.
Theoretical Skeptic Wrote:Because its a case of tradition effecting translation. If you look deeper you can see where the things I mentioned are not supported in the original language and their influence is pretty well documented.
Well, given that we don't have the originals of any biblical manuscript, making claims about what is and is not present in the original language is fairly laughable. What's also particularly telling is that you're happy to post assertions of what does and doesn't count, but you're remarkably gunshy about how you determine that. One can't help but feel it's simply a position of convenience, rationalized later by this vague stuff.
I'm having some difficulty in learning how to use the forum. The quoting function to me seems odd. So, please be patient with me. We have a great deal of manuscripts that are reliable enough to distinguish what is authentic and what isn't and we have a wealth of religious manuscripts which aren't very accurate but give us a good indication what the customs were like that helps us understand the Bible. My confidence will become more apparent given time.
