I have to disagree with you as to the extent of the problem passages.
Bruce, who is clearly respected by both christian and non-christian
scholars, does an excellent job of demonstrating that the majority of
the problems have little to do with any christian doctrine.
CARR
OK. Give Bruce's analysis of Matthew 27:49 for starters.
We *already* know that nothing affects Christian doctrine, certainly not
facts, so there is little point in you repeating that.
Walter.
Enough manuscript evidence exists that textual
critics have been very able to reconstruct the original meanings.
CARR
No they haven't.
Walter
I don't know if your three pages is accurate or not, but even if it is
Steve, that is very high reliability considering the length of time it
has been transmitted and through the numerous mediums it has gone
through.
You set up a false dilemma by asking me which three pages do I want to
throw out. You know as well as I do that specialists know where the
problem texts are, therefore I don't have to worry about what is
questionable.
CARR
Amazing logic! Because it is known that the accounts of the resurrection
have been corrupted, I don't have to worry about the accounts.
Walter
Steven, you can continue on this all you want (with your biased ways),
but the clear unmistakable fact is that the N.T. is a highly reliable
document as far as its transmission is concerned. Sorry.
Carr
This is a simple repetition of what you said before and what you will
say again. You just ignored ever single example anybody ever gave and
ever will give.
-- Steven Carr steven@bowness.demon.co.uk Visit the UK's leading atheist Web page http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/