Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 03-16-2008, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

In 4 pages of posts, I haven't seen remez actually give a citation for the 99.5% claim. Did I miss that?

regards,

NinJay

Uhh.. . do you have any proof that the NT has undergone any sort of drastic change over the past two thousand years?

-Jay- · 03-16-2008, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

In 4 pages of posts, I haven't seen remez actually give a citation for the 99.5% claim. Did I miss that?

regards,

NinJay

Uhh.. . do you have any proof that the NT has undergone any sort of drastic change over the past two thousand years?

That wasn't my question.

regards,

NinJay

arnoldo · 03-16-2008, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

That Is Not My Dogma

Nice Pink Panther theme song by Henry Mancini.

My Dogma

arnoldo · 03-16-2008, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Uhh.. . do you have any proof that the NT has undergone any sort of drastic change over the past two thousand years?

That wasn't my question.

regards,

NinJay

Sorry, but to quote a resident skeppie. . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Copies of the New York Times are 100% accurate representations of the originals. So what?

If there is any proof that the NT has undergone radical transformation due to copyist errors for the past two thousand years I'm sure there would have a The Da Vinci Code type book published about it by now.

03-16-2008, 03:25 PM

Hiya,

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

John Rylands 130 AD found all the way over in Egypt

That's not correct.

MSS cannot be dated to an exact year (unless they have a date on them.)

P52 is variously dated :
* 100-199
* 100-150
* 145-195

The most recent dating is by Schmidt (145-195, or 170 +/- 25)

Iasion

03-16-2008, 03:28 PM

Hiya remez,

I posted several examplds where MS changes affected important doctrinal issues :

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthr...36#post5210436

Did you overlook my post, perchance?

Iasion

-Jay- · 03-16-2008, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

That wasn't my question.

regards,

NinJay

Sorry, but to quote a resident skeppie. . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Copies of the New York Times are 100% accurate representations of the originals. So what?

If there is any proof that the NT has undergone radical transformation due to copyist errors for the past two thousand years I'm sure there would have a The Da Vinci Code type book published about it by now.

Again, arnoldo, my question was "has remez given a citation for his value of 99.5% transmission accuracy?"

Irrespective of any comments by Johnny Skeptic or anyone else, I'm interested in where remez got his number, or if he just pulled it out of thin air. If he's asserting it, he's got to defend it.

regards,

NinJay

arnoldo · 03-16-2008, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Agreed, the gospel writer didn't have a "chapter/verse' mentality when they wrote the gospels, they also really didn't care if a particular OT writing was specifically mentioning Yeshua because the reality of His earthly existence transcended all of that

True. It is desperately easy to be influenced by strawman-type ideas as to what the bible 'must' say or how it 'must' be composed, which are in fact imaginary, and which the early Christians did not believe.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Agreed. The following is an example of a strawman-type idea since the gosple writer frequently wrote "As it is written in the prophets" and then combined a scripture from several OT books.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Mark 1:2
As written in [Isaiah]

The early MSS have :
"As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..."

But most later versions have :
"As it is written in the prophets..."

Probably because the quote is NOT really from Isaiah (its composited from Isaiah, Malachai, and Exodus) - the eariest MSS were wrong, so later versions fixed this error by using just "prophets".

Here we see later scribes fixing up an earlier mistake.

3. The reason the NT was changed was often arguments over doctrine - i.e. different Christian sects fiddled the books to support their sect.

Iasion

arnoldo · 03-16-2008, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Sorry, but to quote a resident skeppie. . .

If there is any proof that the NT has undergone radical transformation due to copyist errors for the past two thousand years I'm sure there would have a The Da Vinci Code type book published about it by now.

Again, arnoldo, my question was "has remez given a citation for his value of 99.5% transmission accuracy?"

Irrespective of any comments by Johnny Skeptic or anyone else, I'm interested in where remez got his number, or if he just pulled it out of thin air. If he's asserting it, he's got to defend it.

regards,

NinJay

You are correct, my bad.

blastula · 03-16-2008, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Stable Flux

Bart Ehrman gave a good lecture on misquoting Jesus and the transmission of the bible through history. You can download a high quality video or audio version of this lecture from the itunes Istore for free (in the "Itunes U" section). Or you can watch a bootlegged copy on youtube here.
To transcribe a quotation from his lecture about New Testament manuscripts contradicting each other "The way i usually put it to my students is in comparative terms. There are more differences in our manuscripts then there are words in the New Testament." Even though the differences are usually small and insignificant there are still enough contradictions in manuscripts which significantly trouble lower textual criticism of the New Testament. Stating that there are only 400 contentious word differences in the New Testament manuscripts is a radical claim that I don't believe can be supported.

Thanks, I just watched that. Ehrman mentioned most of the discrepancies Iasion listed, but another point he made was about how people accept without much thought that the gospels all say the same thing, that even if the details are different, the message is unified and the same. But the message of each can be taken quite different when reading them separate, even looking at bigger themes, and not just simple word variations. For example, comparing the crucifixion narratives in Mark and Luke. Mark's story is more uncertain, more full of pathos. It shows Jesus as silent the whole way until he pleads, "why have you forsaken me" at the end. Luke has Jesus all chatty, talking to people on the way to the cross and while up on the cross, and appearing very certain as to what is happening, even changing the last words to "Into your hands, I commend my spirit." Luke's Jesus is in control.

That's the recurring theme of the more major discrepancies, a later writer trying to paint Jesus in what the writer considered a better light than an earlier writer, from omitting "not even the son" from Matthew 24:36 to changing "Jesus got angry" to "Jesus was compassionate" in Mark 1:41.

What is truth, indeed.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-16-2008, 03:28 PM	#86
Iasion Guest Posts: n/a	Hiya remez, I posted several examplds where MS changes affected important doctrinal issues : http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthr...36#post5210436 Did you overlook my post, perchance? Iasion

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.