“Because there are a hell of a lot of people who are trying to make me live by it whether I want to or not.”
At any rate, David Cross got his information from someone, who got it from someone else, who got it from somewhere else…
And we’re just taking the OP’s word for it that that’s what he posted that Cross said.
And add in the fact that each telling is done years after the previous telling.
Where did you get this info from, that this is where David Cross got the idea the Bible being rewritten?
edited to add: And where does Dan Brown ever say that to begin with?
Fourthly, you could quit trying toteach a pig to sing. If she believes that the bible is inerrant there is nothing you are going to say that will convince him otherwise. You can respond if you enjoy squabbling for the sake of squabbling (which given that you’re here in the dope you probably do ;)), but otherwise it’s probably best just to ignore her response and get on with your life.
Isn’t “comedy” supposed to be “funny”?
You could maybe get her to quit casting her pearls before swine, while we’re on the porcine metaphors. People who want to snark on Christianity aren’t going to be reasoned out of it.
Have a complete set of autographs been found? Those of you that say he is wrong about the number of translations can’t be sure about that until the all of the autographs are found. Plus you can’t be sure about every book. Genesis? And he’s practicing comedic exaggeration but is basically correct.
You need to tell your friend “Cause it’s funny.”
Just once, Christians could try it for a change.
Although I am totally non-religious I am far to the right of David Cross. I think he’s hilarious.
*Two archaeological finds, the Tel Dan Stele and the Mesha Stele, have direct bearing on the question of the existence of a historical David. The first of these is an Aramean victory stele (inscribed stone) discovered in 1993 at Tel Dan and dated c. 850–835 BCE: it contains the phrase ביתדוד (bytdwd), which has been interpreted as “House of David”.[22] The Mesha Stele from Moab, dating from approximately the same period, may also contain the name David in line 12, where the interpretation is uncertain, and in line 31, where one destroyed letter must be supplied, but apparently no other letter produces a word that makes sense in the context.[23]
…
In December 2014, archaeologists from Mississippi State University announced the discovery of six bullae which suggests that some type of government activity was being conducted in the 10th century, and thus support the existence of David.[28]
In 2015 a 10-year-old Russian volunteer at Jerusalem’s Temple Mount Sifting Project found a seal from the time of King David in the 10th century BCE.[29]*
You’re talking New Testament? Well - respect, I guess, that you’re not afraid to go where your argument’s weakest. But what your saying is very much a political position - and one that only applies to the first four books of the NT, at that. Especially if you’re going to combine “translate re-translate edit re-edit” etc etc with “composed 30 to 90 years after the event”. If the Gospel of John, frex, was written 90 years after the event then shrug game over, that’s the age of the oldest John manuscript we have. No editing, no translating. (I make no statement here about what happened BEFORE it was written, how it came to be written, or who it was written by - that’s very much a political issue, and probably not in scope of this discussion). No dead languages involved.
You’d be on firmer ground if you were going JEDP hypothesis. But even there - if you go back to my first post you’ll note that I specifically referred to translations and languages. I’m not really going to get into a “how many times were parts of the Bible edited” argument here, not least because when you head back to OT territory the answer to that question is basically unknowable.
Not sure I’m following your point. It’s not “political” to say that we cannot get closer to the original texts of the Gospels - and Acts, and the epistles - than copies of copies of copies of copies. Your example about John, for instance - yes, scholars think that the Gospel of John was written around 90 C.E. But the very earliest sample of John that we have - the very earliest sample of any NT text, as it happens - is the P52 fragment, a little 3 1/2" x 2 1/2" scrap of papyrus that contains parts of seven lines of John 18:31-33 on the front, and parts of seven lines of vss 37-38 on the back. It might date as early as 117 CE. Or it might date to early third century.
As far as “editing”, well, did you see my earlier post about the Johannine Comma? That’s lines from 1 John (not one of the first four books of the NT, note) that are the only Scriptural support for the doctrine of the Trinity:
[QUOTE=The King James Bible]
7.For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
[/QUOTE]
Thing is, those lines I italicized? They don’t actually show up in any very early texts of the writing. They don’t appear, in fact, until the seventh century.
There are other examples, too. Hebrews 2:9 is usually translated:
[QUOTE=Revised Standard Version]
But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one.
[/QUOTE]
.
But some texts say that rather than dying “by the grace of God”, Jesus died “apart from God”. The two phrases are similar in Greek, but lend themselves to very different theological interpretation. So which is the original? We dunno; an argument can be made for each.
There is plenty of textual evidence for the NT, but the fact is, to quote Bart Ehrman:
Well religious people MAINLY christians won’t stfu so why should we?