Bede

Toto,

I don't think that anyone denies Doherty is a very clever fellow with some well thought out ideas. I give his site an enthusiastic review on my own site. So don't worry. However his ideas are extreme and his professional standing non-existant. I also happen to think he is dead wrong and that his methodology would leave us with precious little history left to study. That said I read his ideas with interest and much prefer reading what I disgree with to what I don't (which is why my bookshelves have lots of Dawkins, Dennett, Atkins, Crosson, Spong et al on them).

And for what's it's worth I'm probably closer to Burton Mach than to an inerrantist YEC (who I assume you meant by conservative fundie) as well.

As for this web site, as Michael has now admitted it contains a plethora of errors, perhaps we could talk about something else now. I look forward to Michael's next presentation of a soon to be found factual inaccurate site.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vorkosigan

I'm afraid this "author" has thoroughly confused you, of no fault of your own. The manuscript site your referenced is a good one, but the column that lists the passages included on each papyrus is terribly confusing to read.

I thought so, but I figured it must be me.

Michael

Vorkosigan

As for this web site, as Michael has now admitted it contains a plethora of errors, perhaps we could talk about something else now. I look forward to Michael's next presentation of a soon to be found factual inaccurate site.

Thanks Bede!



Michael

[ August 10, 2001: Message edited by: turtonm ]

Vorkosigan

Just for fun, I asked the guy in charge of Interpreting Ancient Manuscripts what manuscripts had complete gospel chapters prior to 300. His response:

> >Also, what manucripts prior to 300 have at least one complete gospel
> >chapter?
>
> Is that a trick question? There were no >chapters prior to 300.

Thanks for an illuminating discussion, guys.

Yes, I know, Polycarp. It's a funny comment, nevertheless.

Also, Bede, since my latest recommendation is the Interpreting Ancient Manuscripts site, why don't you point out the errors there?

Michael

rodahi

Apikorus: Michael's web page is erratic and unscholarly. That's not to say it is utterly worthless, but simply that it is of dubious quality.

rodahi: With all due respect, Apikorus, would you recommend a website which is "scholarly"-- while at the same time gives a detailed NT timeline in a neutral (neither anti-Christian or pro-Christian) manner and contains virtually no errors or controversial information? I think all of us would appreciate it.

Apikorus: rodahi, early Christianity is not really my thing. I'm more a Hebrew Bible guy. Generally I don't read much on the web, as I said. A few sites that I have been impressed by:

http://shell5.ba.best.com/~gdavis/ntcanon/index.shtml
http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/index.html
http://religion.rutgers.edu/vri/ (outstanding resource)
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/kchanson/papyri.html#NTP (NT papyri and codices)

Of course I can't vouch that these are all error-free. But gosh, rodahi, I think that by now it is quite apparent that the timeline which you hastily deemed worthy of committing to memory is in fact rather shoddy work.

For some unknown reason you went back and edited your first posting--the more sensible one.

1. You criticize the site Michael offered and yet you can't "vouch that your sites are error-free." Why not?
2. Can you vouch that you sites are neutral? If not, why not?
3. Can you vouch the sites are scholarly? If not, why not?
4. Prove the website Michael offered is less neutral, filled with more errors, and contains more controversial information than the the sites you offered. If you cannot, why criticize?

rodahi

Apikorus

rodahi, grow up.

James Still

Wha? If anything I said was referential then it is purely a coincidence. Sorry Polycarp I just used your name as an example. I wasn't referring to any real exchange except that exchanges like that are typical site-wide.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by turtonm: Just for fun, I asked the guy in charge of Interpreting Ancient Manuscripts what manuscripts had complete gospel chapters prior to 300. His response: > >Also, what manucripts prior to 300 have at least one complete gospel > >chapter? > > Is that a trick question? There were no >chapters prior to 300. Thanks for an illuminating discussion, guys. Yes, I know, Polycarp. It's a funny comment, nevertheless. Also, Bede, since my latest recommendation is the Interpreting Ancient Manuscripts site, why don't you point out the errors there?

LOL. Don’t worry. You’ll hear no lectures from me on that one. I actually got into a conversation once with a fundie who thought the New Testament writers composed their gospels with the chapters and verses in place. You would’ve enjoyed hearing that one.

To your credit, the Interpreting Ancient Manuscripts site is a fairly decent one. One of the few things I don’t like about it is the format they used for listing the “chapters and verses” appearing on each manuscript. It’s impossible to read clearly. Why they used all commas instead of the usual colon between chapter and verse makes no sense to me.

I think there might be one or two more papyri dated to before 300 C.E. that contain at least one chapter of a gospel besides the three I listed. I'll check my books this weekend and let you know. I don't trust my memory and I'm not positive about it.

Peace,

Polycarp

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by James Still: Wha? If anything I said was referential then it is purely a coincidence. Sorry Polycarp I just used your name as an example. I wasn't referring to any real exchange except that exchanges like that are typical site-wide.

No problem. Thanks for clarifying.

Peace,

Polycarp

rodahi

Translation: Sorry, I just wanted to criticize Michael's website. NO reason.

rodahi

[ August 10, 2001: Message edited by: rodahi ]