> Presently, I don't have the mental energy (or time) to parse through everything you have copied here (sorry, I just don't)
I absolutely understand - no need at all to look through all the links etc. I was really just trying to show enough to illustrate my difficulties when personally trying to verify this info. I hate that the only option is to trust - I want to check for myself!
> I do think you're at risk of reading into some of this "evidence" for foul play. Ken Thompson's lecture "Reflections on Trusting Trust" comes to mind for reasons that escape me.
Absolutely fair enough too. I now have very low levels of trust. But then that is because I bear in mind that people really do play tricks. I mean there are so many examples... do you remember weapons of mass distraction, Hans Blix, etc? Or Snowden? Did you know Zelensky is referenced in the Panama papers? Etc.
My low trust levels are based on my research. Eg the sort of historical research I presented above. There is always scope to doubt a story.. and perhaps, if you do not 'default to trust' there are hints at how the tricks may be being played. Perhaps such is the nature of power - ie that is it is a series of deeply considered, well-executed trickery to manage the masses. Perhaps the idea of faking commonly perceived truths is something that has a long pedigree - perhaps 'power' has used tricks to manage people from the very beginning. Perhaps trickery is actually to world's oldest profession :)
> I hate that the only option is to trust - I want to check for myself!
I can understand that. I went through a similar period in my late teens/early 20s that caused me to reject my faith (among other things, but this was a contributing part of it). Ironically, I came back to Christianity and accepted Christ when I was ~22 because of a book written by a Jewish biblical scholar. For me, encountering Young Earth Creationism was the proverbial back-breaking straw more so than source trust, but both were certainly present in my mind and caused sufficient doubt to turn aside from the faith.
As I've gotten older, I've found that certain arguments feel less interesting. Some things, like this, have to be taken on faith. I mean, I don't even debate YECs anymore! The problem I have as of this writing is that I cannot decide if it's more a matter of my mental energies feel better invested elsewhere or if it's a lack of interest beyond a certain threshold. Manuscript sourcing is interesting to me, but I don't find it to be a make-or-break situation.
> do you remember weapons of mass distraction, Hans Blix, etc? Or Snowden? Did you know Zelensky is referenced in the Panama papers? Etc.
All of the above, in fact. I've gotten into trouble, ironically, from some people at church for having zero trust for Zelensky.
"But we need to support him because RUSSIA!"
Right. And where is the money going? I have very limited trust also, most especially for ANYONE in positions of power where it can be abused. I feel like just saying this makes me sound like a conspiracy nut, but the reality is that humans are intrinsically untrustworthy.
Admittedly, I feel much more charitable toward biblical manuscripts, but perhaps that's because I'm approaching the question from a different angle. That is, I'm inclined to read providential preservation into the text, which is how I parse things like a) the discovery of the DSS (and LXX fragments) in Qumran and b) the rather fortuitous discovery of large bodies of previously unknown Koine Greek in the 1900s giving us insight into the NT.
That isn't to say I don't have problems with parts of our translations. I do. But most of the problems I have fall into the category of stylistic choices by the translators. Maybe even a few unknowns that have crept into the text ("Lilith" in Isa 34:14 being a recent one I encountered while reading through the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible). The problem here is that I've become so fascinated by the ANE context that I honestly haven't spent quite as much time in the NT as of late as perhaps I should...
Anyway, thank you for the cordial conversation, friend. Much appreciated!
I absolutely understand - no need at all to look through all the links etc. I was really just trying to show enough to illustrate my difficulties when personally trying to verify this info. I hate that the only option is to trust - I want to check for myself!
> I do think you're at risk of reading into some of this "evidence" for foul play. Ken Thompson's lecture "Reflections on Trusting Trust" comes to mind for reasons that escape me.
Absolutely fair enough too. I now have very low levels of trust. But then that is because I bear in mind that people really do play tricks. I mean there are so many examples... do you remember weapons of mass distraction, Hans Blix, etc? Or Snowden? Did you know Zelensky is referenced in the Panama papers? Etc.
My low trust levels are based on my research. Eg the sort of historical research I presented above. There is always scope to doubt a story.. and perhaps, if you do not 'default to trust' there are hints at how the tricks may be being played. Perhaps such is the nature of power - ie that is it is a series of deeply considered, well-executed trickery to manage the masses. Perhaps the idea of faking commonly perceived truths is something that has a long pedigree - perhaps 'power' has used tricks to manage people from the very beginning. Perhaps trickery is actually to world's oldest profession :)
All the best, thanks for your thoughts.