No, that's complete nonsense.
I can see were unlikely to agree on this because we both agree that the respective translators of the bibles we don't prefer have objectives that may have influenced translation.
No, NA27 & NA28 are eclectic texts. They're not Alexandrian.
We're done here.
I said 'unless I'm mistaken'...I'm quite happy to be corrected, thanks for enlightening me.
Tell me, can I get a copy of this in English anywhere online, i've looked and can't seem to find? What does Romans 1 say?
Who wrote "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few"?
I just typed those letters on my keyboard, so in that sense I wrote it. But in a much more important sense Winston Churchill wrote it.
For the same reason, I think that text claimed to be a direct quote of something said by Jesus is claimed to have been written by Jesus. Text written by Paul is not.
There are a number of scriptures that would disagree with you.
It's also not possible unless you think your god has severe multiple personality disorder and thus has different personalities and says contradictory things.
Large, complex and contradictry texts are usually only clear and simple to people who are cherry-picking interpretations of cherry-picked parts in order to use those texts as an appeal to authority to support their own position. The pick 'n' mix approach to old testament stuff is particularly good for that. This rule still applies, that one doesn't, those ones don't either but that one does...since there isn't any clear statement about which do and which don't, any selection can be chosen by anyone. Unless, of course, you believe that your bible is the word of your god, all of it. Including Matthew 5:17-18.
I've remained completely consistent on this point and made it as simple as possible but I'll repeat it again for you:
Oldest: no homo, mosaic law
Old: old law fulfilled
Not so old: no homo
I don't think that's irrational or contradictory unless you wilfully conflate the mosiac law with others of God's commandments. Presumably if you think the whole of the Law presented in the OT is fulfilled it's now fine to kill, commit adultery, worship false idols, steal and so on. But of course that's ridiculous.
Now you're being very silly.
A small number of translators from the same society taught the same way with the same biases working on a text from an ancient society they know hardly anything about written in an almost dead language and writing it for the same organisation which had already decided what it wanted the translation to say, an organisation they were part of and devoted to, are not in a position to make a perfect translation. Nobody is, ever, but they were particularly badly placed to do so.
Stephen Hawking's work is obviously completely different because it's testable against objective reality. But even if any of it is wrong, that doesn't have any implications regarding his intelligence.
Your claimed equivalence is genuinely amusing.
Who claimed it was perfect? You are denigrating people more brilliant than yourself, why do you seem to hold them to any higher standard than that of modern day scholars who arguably all have an agenda and are seeking to peddle their own politics and philosophies?
just fed up of the minority intruding on the majorities ways.
