You mention Assmann without mentioning the great work by one Coomer, namely God and Sex? That's the real Christian porn of textual originality.
I'm 100% sure you've never read a number of these authors, because you asked Grok for a top 20 list and edited his artificial answer. You're not evidencing your claims of ad fontes very well as this is all 20th-century-plus. I've looked into all the great 6-letter authors on your list, Pagels, Ehrman, Vermes, Vallee, also Israel Finkelstein, and been unimpressed by their rants, as is mainstream scholarship which has recently begun pushing back against Westcott-Hort excesses and is readmitting the Textus Receptus gradually.
Instead of fighting, let's try "something completely different":
If you think you are RIGHT and the truth of your God is on your side, you should have no problem going to text outside your small circle ..., as you'd find or at least recognize truth there as well. Because truth, actual truth does not burn in the hottest of fires. If your truth is correct, it will sustain and deflect all these attacks from other sources.
Yes, as edited! That's something I've said here for 5 years. I'm burnished bronze from the exposure to Enheduanna and Ningishzeda.
If you want to read elsewhere, you need to start textual criticism OUTSIDE The small circle of bible study, and go to ACTUAL history research books, from people whose motives are not to try and prove bible right, but to find out the truth, whatever it is. Then, when you get this, you'll develop into the study of textual transmission
Yes, with the proviso that we must by those terms also exclude all textual critics in a small circle whose motives are not to find out the truth, whatever it is, but to try and prove a bible wrong. The German higher critics starting in the 19th century, who birthed Hort-Westcott, introduced this stream of bias in the other direction, and it hasn't let up since.
Factdigger, are you a student of truth whatever it is, or do you stick to a circle that affirms your own biases? Because the truth will break you as I've been broken and will be again. You might not want it, though I hope you do. The evidence that a person is a student of truth, whatever it is, is that, as you say, a person is willing to hear all sides before judging, is patient with those who differ because the truth can defend itself, is able to laugh and admit he's been wrong before and his current apprehension of truth will be strengthened by fresh meat. Would you like to start bearing that evidence?
Add: While we're at it, what's your UAP contact's name? I have a few words for him as well, and I expect he's the same as your god so you should have no fear of naming him.
Well, then we can proceed, and we can both drop the facades, invective, misassumptions, and dismissals, and pursue truth together. I'm not touchy, just trying to get past your own bluster to the true you.
I'm disappointed you assert zero positives about your god and your position mainly seems identical to the atheist position of "you're wrong". I had glanced through your writings and found a similar lack of reliance on facts and evidence, so your list of books with perfect ChatGPT formatting suggested it was an outlier rather than something on your shelf. You also didn't use it for any purpose because anyone can make a list of 20 books of any persuasion without that having any truth value out of context. That's why I taunted you, because you didn't bring anything to the table.
not willing to understand it, and stick to your Christian beliefs
I expressed that I've seen this material and understand it, and in my search for truth have sifted what is true and what isn't, in my fallible, perfectible judgment. My beliefs change from time to time, but the one thing I cannot change is that I've been given up to Yahweh's power and I cannot be taken from him unless by a superior power. (As soon as that superior power comes along, it would free me. If.)
Since you don't seem to produce a proposition capable of debate on a fundamental point, I suggested by implication that we discuss a binary proposition like "Yahweh is greater than any other god". I could continue by observations such as Yahweh being defined as All Being and All Being being automatically greater than any subset of being. You might parry that Yahweh in the Bible is not described as All Being but as some Dawkins caricature, and I would reply that that's irrelevant because of my definition. We might then agree that we both would worship whatever god is All Being without yet arguing about his name. That would be productive.
It's not productive for me to argue propositions like "The Bible is by humans for humans" because that gets us nowhere toward discovering whether Yahweh dictated the Bible or not. I hold the Bible is by humans for humans, and Yahweh dictated it, both, so there's no debate there.
It seems to me that as a student of truth you would not (1) run from debate, (2) ridicule generically, (3) make assumptions, (4) fail to define and defend your own perception of truth, etc. Looking forward to your thoughts. So far you appear exactly like someone who has no idea what a student of truth is but who is enslaved to some god that he is afraid to name or explain, who then projects that status upon others. God bless.
You mention Assmann without mentioning the great work by one Coomer, namely God and Sex? That's the real Christian porn of textual originality.
I'm 100% sure you've never read a number of these authors, because you asked Grok for a top 20 list and edited his artificial answer. You're not evidencing your claims of ad fontes very well as this is all 20th-century-plus. I've looked into all the great 6-letter authors on your list, Pagels, Ehrman, Vermes, Vallee, also Israel Finkelstein, and been unimpressed by their rants, as is mainstream scholarship which has recently begun pushing back against Westcott-Hort excesses and is readmitting the Textus Receptus gradually.
Instead of fighting, let's try "something completely different":
Yes, as edited! That's something I've said here for 5 years. I'm burnished bronze from the exposure to Enheduanna and Ningishzeda.
Yes, with the proviso that we must by those terms also exclude all textual critics in a small circle whose motives are not to find out the truth, whatever it is, but to try and prove a bible wrong. The German higher critics starting in the 19th century, who birthed Hort-Westcott, introduced this stream of bias in the other direction, and it hasn't let up since.
Factdigger, are you a student of truth whatever it is, or do you stick to a circle that affirms your own biases? Because the truth will break you as I've been broken and will be again. You might not want it, though I hope you do. The evidence that a person is a student of truth, whatever it is, is that, as you say, a person is willing to hear all sides before judging, is patient with those who differ because the truth can defend itself, is able to laugh and admit he's been wrong before and his current apprehension of truth will be strengthened by fresh meat. Would you like to start bearing that evidence?
Add: While we're at it, what's your UAP contact's name? I have a few words for him as well, and I expect he's the same as your god so you should have no fear of naming him.
Well, then we can proceed, and we can both drop the facades, invective, misassumptions, and dismissals, and pursue truth together. I'm not touchy, just trying to get past your own bluster to the true you.
I'm disappointed you assert zero positives about your god and your position mainly seems identical to the atheist position of "you're wrong". I had glanced through your writings and found a similar lack of reliance on facts and evidence, so your list of books with perfect ChatGPT formatting suggested it was an outlier rather than something on your shelf. You also didn't use it for any purpose because anyone can make a list of 20 books of any persuasion without that having any truth value out of context. That's why I taunted you, because you didn't bring anything to the table.
I expressed that I've seen this material and understand it, and in my search for truth have sifted what is true and what isn't, in my fallible, perfectible judgment. My beliefs change from time to time, but the one thing I cannot change is that I've been given up to Yahweh's power and I cannot be taken from him unless by a superior power. (As soon as that superior power comes along, it would free me. If.)
Since you don't seem to produce a proposition capable of debate on a fundamental point, I suggested by implication that we discuss a binary proposition like "Yahweh is greater than any other god". I could continue by observations such as Yahweh being defined as All Being and All Being being automatically greater than any subset of being. You might parry that Yahweh in the Bible is not described as All Being but as some Dawkins caricature, and I would reply that that's irrelevant because of my definition. We might then agree that we both would worship whatever god is All Being without yet arguing about his name. That would be productive.
It's not productive for me to argue propositions like "The Bible is by humans for humans" because that gets us nowhere toward discovering whether Yahweh dictated the Bible or not. I hold the Bible is by humans for humans, and Yahweh dictated it, both, so there's no debate there.
It seems to me that as a student of truth you would not (1) run from debate, (2) ridicule generically, (3) make assumptions, (4) fail to define and defend your own perception of truth, etc. Looking forward to your thoughts. So far you appear exactly like someone who has no idea what a student of truth is but who is enslaved to some god that he is afraid to name or explain, who then projects that status upon others. God bless.