show_no_mercy

lol...

I think this is my cue to not continue this discussion...

mountainman

Are these fragments dated with a date? If they are undated fragments for which the dating process relies upon the academic assessment of handwriting analysis (ie: paleography), then you have a major problem. Namely that you are suggesting that such an christian scholarly academic opinion actually constitutes a "proof" of the early date which you are seeking. I hope that you understand that such a "proof", based on academic "opinion", is not only conjectural but also quite ambiguous. Try again. Please cite some unambiguous ancient historical evidence.

archaeologist

Why? Based upon your mistake you are going to leave the discussion?

Keep in mind I am not your dog and will jump to your commands. If you do notlike the evidence presented then that is up to you, it is your choice but at no time do you getto think that I am at your beck and call.

Keep in mind, also, that if you reject my use of the dating processes that you can never refer to them or use them to support your points. We are not going to have a double standard in any discussion with me..

My referral to the date was to point out what is on record declared by others. But then I have always noticed a hypocrisy amongst secular people who will deny the use of scientific tools when the Bible benefits but turn around and use it when their theories need support.

The Biblical books were not written later than the 1st century AD and you cannot prove thatthey were. Ehrman is completely wrong with his charges of editing and never provides any substantial or hard evidence to show he is correct.

Deus Ex

:facepalm:



So the bible had a Ghostwriter, Holy Ghost writer that is. :dancy:

spamandham

Archaeologist, if you haven't figured it out yet, this board is dominated by atheists who certainly don't believe in God, a Holy spirit, or the infallibility of the Bible. You're wasting your time with such forms of argument, and by opening the discussion with such claims, you've already caused most of us to put you into the "ugh,another evangelical thinks he can save all us poor condemned atheists. That's what, the 9th one this week? Oh well, we can still have a bit of fun with him" category.

schriverja

Who brought up Ehrman? I saw no mention of him for the first three pages of this thread... When you remove the names of who you are quoting (from this thread) it makes it hard to see what exactly you are responding to.

schriverja

Actually, the earliest complete texts of the NT don't show up until the middle of the 4th century (1 & 2 Timothy, and 3rd John). There are six small papyri fragments from the 2nd century, the earliest dating around 125 CE (likely a very small fragment of John, see a pic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands...ry_Papyrus_P52). It's also worth noting that less than 5% of the extant manuscripts date before the 8th century (check my numbers at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_manuscript).

It is impossible to know how closely the original texts have been recovered via textual criticism. Modern scholars (not just Ehrman, but many) believe that none of the gospels were eyewitness accounts.

You shouldn't accept everything that's been spoon fed to you. As the 'Good' Book says in 1 Thes. 5:21 "Test Everything, Hold onto the Good."

archaeologist

Knew that before I joined up as an atheist provided me with the link, though he was not doing so to get me to register.

well I am here to discuss and provide better arguments for God's side of the issue. I do not come with ulterior motives, you people probably have heard the gospel message as much as I have so it would not be a good use of my time to preach at you.

let's just discuss and hopefully you will see more to the issue than you allow.

i brought up ehrman because he is the leading proponent of the editing issue (or the most well known) I am quoting in order and not removing any names. it is easier for me since am outnumbered here.

#1 I do not consider wikipedia to be a legitimate or credible source. It is okay when there is nothing else available but that is about it. Here are some links that talk about ancient mss.:

http://www.archiesarena.com/subpage184.html

http://www.archiesarena.com/subpage185.html

http://www.archiesarena.com/subpage186.html

http://www.archiesarena.com/subpage187.html

Did you really expect non-believers to accept them as eye-witnesses? we do not have to 'recover' anything, as God promised to preserve His word. If we do not have all of them now then we are in big trouble. of course i limit the versions which would contain God's word.

Deus Ex

Really? I have never heard God promise to preserve his word. I have never actually heard him say anything. What does his voice sound like? I'll bet it sounds like thunder, right?

I mean you would know since you have a personal relationship with him. :constern02:

Johnny Skeptic

That is ridiculous. Finkelstein's book 'The Bible Unearthed' is certainly not negligable evidence. And what about other researchers? Consider the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus