Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

10737Re: New Op-ed Piece on my Site

Expand Messages
  • sytzevdl
    Nov 24, 2013

      Ironically, the somewhat unnecessary political example in this thread of one of the 5 known versions of the Gettysburg Address rather illustrates that it was difficult even 150 years ago to get a consistent transmission of president Lincoln's speech within his lifetime. One of the earliest texts, the "Nicolay" version, indeed does not contain the words "under God". The fact that president Obama was asked to recite this lesser-known version for a documentary film made by Ken Burns does not make it his omission! It's an omission on the part of the so-called journalists who would like to believe otherwise and are supposed to check their sources. I guess 50 years from now we'll still find eyewitness accounts on the internet reporting this incorrectly, though. Yes, there is nothing new under the sun ;-)


      Sytze


      P.S. Thanks for the nice mention earlier of the lacuna image I created aeons ago, Mike! I'm still enjoying most of the discussions here, but lurkerdom even more.



      ---In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, <tomreynolds_ilan@...> wrote:

      Judy-
       
      I agree that we can't know Jesus's actual words but I do think we can say, within limits, what he did not say.
       
      [snip]

      Therefore I conclude that Matthew's and Mark's intrepretation of this parable is correct. Everybody agrees that these books were within the eyewitness period. The words Matthew and Mark could put into Jesus's mouth were limited by the living eyewitnesses and the oral tradition.
       
      However, move a generation or two later and the situation changes. A few days earlier, President Obama, in quoting the Gettysburg Address, removed the words "under God"  from the last line: "-- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Not many noticed this politically correct redaction. True, the actual words are easily obtainable but few bothered.
       
      Regards,
       
      Tom
       
      From: Judy Redman
      To: "gthomas@yahoogroups.com"
      Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 1:31 PM
      Subject: RE: [GTh] Re: New Op-ed Piece on my Site
       
      Tom,
       
      I suspect that Ian is saying that he doesn’t care what Jesus was trying to convey precisely because he is interested in what the human author is representing Jesus as having said. J
       
      I think that trying to get back to the original/actual words of Jesus by using the texts that we have is a hopeless task unless you are prepared to believe that God somehow worked to guarantee that what Jesus said was recorded accurately. All we have is what people remembered him as saying and passed on to others – a method of recording that is subject to all sorts of changes.
       
      Judy
    • Show all 34 messages in this topic