volgadon

I suggest you lay off the mind reading, it clearly isn't working particularly well for you. I am not saying that Matthew corrected Mark. Far from it. That point is only valid if you can show that Matthew's purpose was to rewrite Mark, rather than presenting his own ideological message based on the life of Christ, drawing from whatever sources were available, and judging by your poor performance with mind reading, you'll need all the luck you can get. I can't wait for your latest attacks and insults. You seem to think that scores you a victory.

Funny how you have never provided strong evidence for Mark being Matthew's only source. You made that assertion, it is for you to back it up. Many pages later, we are still waiting. A vague appeal to a scholarly consensus doesn't cut it.

OR, as I have said before, the author of Mathew had several sources, not just Mark. This is an entirely reasonable assumption, just as reasonable as Mark being the only source. Drop your silly accusation of appeal to mystery, it doesn't hold water.

The biggest current differences are that you baptise yourself, though a witness needs to be present, and that you do so in the nude. It isn't clear that this was the case around the time of John the Baptist.

The practice of ritual bathings was common and popular.

Shazz, the answer is we don't know.

Certainly not at this early a time they shouldn't be mixing. Not without a good reason at any rate. I agree with you.

It is not even modern Hebrew! A teacher in modern Hebrew is moreh for a male, morah for a female, with the accent of both on the last syllable. Even Yemenite Aramaic is mori (because of the dagesh) not mor.

Mar is Aramaic for master, but I think it is a little too late for the BoM timeframe.

You have not shown that Mark was Matthew's only source. You have not shown that Mark was Matthew's only source for the fig tree incident. You have not shown that Mark wasn't the one who changed the account. You have not shown any significant difference apart from the timing of the withering, and even that is not as big as you make it out to be.

what is

Westcott and Hort worked in the 1880s. That was 130 years ago. Much has changed. "The words in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part of the New Testament." I find it interesting that you did not quote the very next sentence in Hunter's book. "Hort probably underestimated the element of uncertainty. There still remain quite a few places where the experts disagree about the true reading." Hunter then proceeds to provide several examples. Neither he, nor Wescott and Hort were talking about having 99% of the original text! These quotes are about understanding the meaning of the words. In all faiirness, Hunter does claim that anyone using the RSV or NEB is as close to the original 'autographs' as "makes no material difference." He doesn't back up that statement. And which manuuscripts would those be? France is not exactly a textual critic, but he is a very conservative scholar. Many would disagree with his conclusion above. No direct quote on the 95%? You have failed to show that. Except I certainly am not arguing any sort of conspiracy theory. There are corruptions in the text, there are corruptions in most any ancient text.Textual critics have a methodology but it is far from perfect. They also don't make the claim that they know most of what there is to be known. Again, there is corruption in the texts, that really is all that is needed. If I have a specific instance in mind, then I should provide further documentation and arguments. You are the one expecting us to defend a vague position. Perhaps if you cited something specific, then we could get somewhere. Nobody has appealed to mystery.

On the bible corruptions thread I posted a fairly long post on your sources, shall I post it again here?

I've said it time and time again. That you never bother reading is not surprising, but tedious. So is your misrepresentation of sources.

No, no, no. I repeat, no. I did not agree with you about alterations. Let me make this really simple. All alterations are differences, but not all differences are alterations. I disagree with you that Matthew altered Mark's account of the fig tree. That it is an alteration is something that you have so far failed to show conclusively.

Most traditions associate him with Noah's son Shem.

Same agreement, but it isn't referenced in full. I'm talking about things which are very much a part of my life and has been ever since I can remember. I know a little more about it than just a statement on a BYU Jerusalem form.

And that BYU thing that p[eople keep quoting, is talking about a specific aspect, as it applies to BYU.

That isn't the text, it is a statement on the BYU website. If you like, I will try and get a statement directly from church officials.

Provide an example of someone claiming changes to the text, so we can see what text is in question and take it from there.

Snow, you must enjoy winning your battles by setting up strawmen, tearing them down and misrepresenting others, not to mention presenting quotes out of context. My how you crow over every 'victory'. Can't really see you winning any toher way. As I said, you are the one making exceedingly vague statements. Either provide a concrete example of somebody claiming that there were changes, so we can have something to discuss other than hypotheticals, or stop claiming that I appeal to mystery.

Brush up on your reading comprehension. I'm talking about alteration, I already cleared that up.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. You are becoming increasingly tedious. Enjoy huffing and puffing at your strawman.

The Aleppo IS the very finest of the maosretic school, but, sadly, a lot was destroyed in 1948. The advantage of the Leningrad is that it is intact. Both, BTW, were written in the town next to my home.

Of course I won't, because that is not my point at all.