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.

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?