AGAIN you have not addressed a single thing I said. Instead you employ ad hominem AGAIN.
Your task at hand is to articulate a counter argument for why the New Testament documents are not superior in both number of manuscripts and time gap between autograph and first copy.
No, that is not my task, and I suggest that is moving the goal posts by leaving out the OT for which I gave specific evidence of mistranslation. Nevertheless, my task is to counter the statement:
The Biblical writings have been preserved throughout the millennia
The Bibilical writings have NOT been preserved. On the contrary, most of them have been left out of the official "Bible". This is just one of the arguments I addressed, because I also was addressing what this implies.
It implies that "because the official version hasn't changed (since the ecumenical council (which is also not true btw)), that means it's divinely supported." It also implies that the tenets extracted from the official version are "true," even though what is left out tells a completely different story.
For the first, that is only one possible interpretation. It could ALSO mean that there is an agency that intends for the official version not to change, because they created it to control beliefs, and steer them in the wrong direction. I am ALSO showing evidence to support a counter argument to that implication of your claim.
For the second, I suggest the story that all of the evidence suggests is something very different than what is gleaned from the "official version."
I await your ADDRESS of my SPECIFIC criticisms that support my counter argument.
66 books, or 73. Pick your translation. They all say pretty much the same thing, and leave out a whole bunch, not to mention inconsistencies and controversial (and conflicting) translations (in the OT).
Of course the authorship of quite a few books that made it into the NT are somewhat controversial. Revelations is particularly problematic, but most of the controversial translations are in the OT. Since that seems to be what you want to focus on (though I'm not really sure why), I will concede that NT authorship and translation (in the official version) is mostly corroborated in ancient texts.
AGAIN you have not addressed a single thing I said. Instead you employ ad hominem AGAIN.
No, that is not my task, and I suggest that is moving the goal posts by leaving out the OT for which I gave specific evidence of mistranslation. Nevertheless, my task is to counter the statement:
The Bibilical writings have NOT been preserved. On the contrary, most of them have been left out of the official "Bible". This is just one of the arguments I addressed, because I also was addressing what this implies.
It implies that "because the official version hasn't changed (since the ecumenical council (which is also not true btw)), that means it's divinely supported." It also implies that the tenets extracted from the official version are "true," even though what is left out tells a completely different story.
For the first, that is only one possible interpretation. It could ALSO mean that there is an agency that intends for the official version not to change, because they created it to control beliefs, and steer them in the wrong direction. I am ALSO showing evidence to support a counter argument to that implication of your claim.
For the second, I suggest the story that all of the evidence suggests is something very different than what is gleaned from the "official version."
I await your ADDRESS of my SPECIFIC criticisms that support my counter argument.
Slyver, can you please define what you mean when you say the “official version?”
66 books, or 73. Pick your translation. They all say pretty much the same thing, and leave out a whole bunch, not to mention inconsistencies and controversial (and conflicting) translations (in the OT).
Of course the authorship of quite a few books that made it into the NT are somewhat controversial. Revelations is particularly problematic, but most of the controversial translations are in the OT. Since that seems to be what you want to focus on (though I'm not really sure why), I will concede that NT authorship and translation (in the official version) is mostly corroborated in ancient texts.