c.o.e. and woman bishops.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the point is a bank note is not an epistle to the Romans.

And yet both can be forged. The identity of the forger is immaterial.

Originally posted by FMF
Be careful not to fall into the trap of using a circular argument here.

I have every faith in empirical evidence.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
but you have not answered my questions , have you, you stated that there are
thousands of scholars who, apparently are able or otherwise to corroborate Dr
BeDhuns text, who are these thousands of scholars?

No, I asked you out of the thousands of bible scholars out there, how many have corroborated Jason DeBuhn's opinions? Your answer is 'none as far as you are aware', is that right?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the question is not about me, its about you, do you often try to undermine the veracity of a text without actually having read it?

bump for FMF

Originally posted by FMF
No, I asked you out of the thousands of bible scholars out there, how many have corroborated Jason DeBuhn's opinions? Your answer is 'none as far as you are aware', is that right?

who are these thousands of scholars that is my question, you say they exist and are able to corroborate or not Dr. BeDhuns, text, who are they?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
bump for FMF

The veracity of ideas and opinions can be discussed without reading the books that propagate them, of course. You do it yourself, even with ideas that have been corroborated by thousands and thousands of scholars.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
one only needs to examine the content, how does the content of Timothy and Titus
attest to their lack of genuineness

The Muratorian fragment mentions specifically that there are texts which are "forged in Paul's name to [further] the heresy of Marcion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment

It is know there are forged texts and it is known there are genuine texts attributed to Paul. Now back to your statement earlier in the thread -

Its simply a nonsense to state that because a writer uses a different style, different vocabulary that it brings into suspicion the authorship.

It is definitely not a nonsense to question texts attributed to Paul if they are written in a differently style when it is known for a fact that writers were forging texts in his name.

As for your question, you're going to have to research that yourself. Although i sincerely doubt you will.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
who are these thousands of scholars that is my question, you say they exist and are able to corroborate or not Dr. BeDhuns, text, who are they?

I asked you which ones corroborated DeBuhn's opinions and you said none. If you think there are not thousands of books written by thousands of bible scholars, then that is news to me, and perhaps a matter for you.

Originally posted by FMF
The veracity of ideas and opinions can be discussed without reading the books that propagate them, of course. You do it yourself, even with ideas that have been corroborated by thousands and thousands of scholars.

I see, so a book looking at the specific translations of the English text found in eight
specific translations of the New testament can be discussed without actually having
read the work that seeks to examine them, tell us, how you propose to ascertain the
veracity or otherwise of Dr BeDhuns findings if you have not read his work on the
subject?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
who are these thousands of scholars that is my question, you say they exist and are able to corroborate or not Dr. BeDhuns, text, who are they?

Here's a list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Biblical_scholars

Originally posted by FMF
I asked you which ones corroborated DeBuhn's opinions and you said none. If you think there are not thousands of books written by thousands of bible scholars, then that is news to me, and perhaps a matter for you.

I am asking you to produce five out of these thousands and make a recommendation, surely it should be an easy task for you?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I see, so a book looking at the specific translations of the English text found in eight
specific translations of the New testament can be discussed without actually having
read the work that seeks to examine them, tell us, how you propose to ascertain the
veracity or otherwise of Dr BeDhuns findings if you have not read his work on the
subject?

FMF is not questioning his findings. He's asking how many other Biblical scholars support DeBruhns assessment?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Here's a list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Biblical_scholars

How many of those authors have undertaken to make an examination of different
Biblical translations and produce a comparative evaluation as to the merits or otherwise
of said translations? It should be easy for you, you have thousand's to choose from.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
FMF is not questioning his findings. He's asking how many other Biblical scholars support DeBruhns assessment?

I know what he is asking, let him cite five out of these thousands who can evaluate Dr
BeDhuns work, after all, I have only asked him five or six times to do so. surely they exist?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
How many of those authors have undertaken to make an examination of different
Biblical translations and produce a comparative evaluation as to the merits or otherwise
of said translations? It should be easy for you, you have thousand's to choose from.

I don't know and i don't care. I'm not questioning his findings.