bjh@rayssd.UUCP (12/08/84)
Yiri,
I am a new reader of the net news and am very new to the
conversation (or combat :-) ) in which you are involved.
Perhaps I too will become a member of this dialogue. But I
need some catching up from you first:
[1] I do not have access to "The Interpreter's Dictionary
of the Bible" (which I assume to be written by heralded heros Parkes
and Bagatti...?). Would you please quote (briefly, of course) those
passages that you feel most support your position? Also, what is
the copyright date of the book. (There have been a lot of discoveries
in the last 25 years...!)
[2] Would you tell us something of their intellectual
qualifications (probably written inside the jacket cover of the book)?
This may not tell me too much, but if their degrees are from
Burger King University, well...
[3] The book and the claims of Parkes and Bagatti are the
only sources that I've heard you claim since I began listening to the
net. Is this the only source you have to stand on? If not, what are
the others. (Forgive me, but I am rather coming in late into this
conversation, aren't I?)
[4] Are you aware that there is a wealth of evidence to
the contrary, and many, MANY Christian scholars that are (as like as not)
on par with Parkes and Bagatti in intellectual qualifications and who
disagree with them? Why should a human soul with perhaps slightly-above
average (but by no means excessive) intelligence that is truly (as truly
as I know how) seeking to know the God of Abraham on His (God's) own
terms believe you (or them)? What makes their "truth" more "true" than
the traditional Christian "truth"?
[5] I am a layman, not a theologian. I read books by C. S. Lewis,
Josh McDowell, etc. In all my conversations with people of differing
beliefs, I have never heard a satisfactory answer to Josh McDowell's
"Evidence that Demands a Verdict" (volumes 1 & 2). (If YOU have one, then you
are the first!) Are you familiar with these books? (Perhaps you and the
others are well above JM's plane--and hence mine, too--perhaps you have
trashed these books before I was on the net. If so, please recap where
he is in error.)
[6] I quote you in one of your articles: "They have no sound
answer to this because there are none." Very good! I've used lines like
that myself for my position (though all it has usually done for me was
to aggravate those listening--and some of them were on MY side!). I am
particularly interested in Parkes and Bagatti's theory for how a
4th Century "Christian Redaction" of the Scriptures could have been
accomplished world-wide without leaving much evidence of it having
occurred, how those that (allegedly) decided what the new scriptures would say
implemented this change. I thought that JM's treatment of such an idea
was very irrefutable. You have Parkes and Bagatti, and I have Josh McDowell
and 24,000 New Testament manuscripts dated BEFORE 150 AD ("Evidence that
Demands a Verdict" vol 1, page 43).
Hoping that you will respond, I remain,
yours in Christ,
------
{allegra, decvax!brunix, ccieng5}!rayssd!djb
Douglas Bonn
Raytheon Co,
Submarine Signal Div., Portsmouth, RI
"Christianity is an anvil that has worn out many hammers."yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (12/09/84)
I am not in your counterfeit antichrist so I resent your trying to communicate with me with such a signature Secondly, do your own homework. There are libraries to supply you with addresses of publishers, etc. Thirdly, any scholar who knows his way in out of the rain knows that there are **NO** manuscripts of the 'New Testament' dating from that date. Fourth, you can go back and reread the older articles and catch up. I haven't the time to do all of your work for you. Don't give the lame excuse of intelligence... I'm talking laziness.