Quote (dajusta @ 17 Apr 2013 03:05)
It has everything to do with being a scholar in that field of work.
Listening to you amateurs questioning the work of scholarly experts is really something.
listening you talk about something you don't understand is always good entertainment
have you ever done literary concordance yourself?
and do you know the history of copying the bible
the more modern the copy the more likely that it deviates from the original
"CPK001' quoted quite a decent site on that but go from here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09627a.htm (*)
without any surprise find there will be way less than 1% change to the wording of the text as is has been reconstructed by now
within the library of the history department of my alma mater is one room full of medieval parchments half of them not yet catalogued
you can be sure that some bible fragments will have been found amongst those when the cataloguing is finished
why aren't the guys from the catholic or protestant theology department storming in to find them?
because they know that those are highly unlikely to contribute anything new
you should really inform yourself before you make outlandish claims
(*) to save you the strain of reading too much by having to read through the whole text, let me just quote something:
The critical study of this rich assortment of about 3400 Massoretic rolls and codices is not so promising of important results as it would at first thought seem to be. The manuscripts are all of quite recent date, if compared with Greek, Latin, and Syriac codices. They are all singularly alike. Some few variants are found in copies made for private use; copies made for public service in the synagogues are so uniform as to deter the critic from comparing them.