arnoldo

If a God exists then he should create a book which would predict natural disasters, the winning lottery tickets, who will be president at exact dates and times, etc,etc.
Yes if a God can predict the future then man should not require faith to believe in that God since the prediction would be undisputable.
Yes, it is so obvious that many people waste their time debating that a God that obviously doesn't exist doesn't exist.
Wow, what formula did you use to reach that 100% figure?
Wait, you just said that the bible contains 100% disputable prophecies. . . Did you really mean it contains 100% false prophecies??
Wrong, it could simply be a prophecy written after the fact of simply bogus historical information that is disguised as prophecy.
Right, it could be a prophecy written after the fact, bad history, mere folklore, a metaphor, allegory, a hallucination. . .
So know the bible contains 100% true prophecies which are also 100% disputable prophecies?
Rught, and the church is just hanging around here for the past 2000 years for nothing. . .
It would only prove to have been prophecy after the fact.
No, the prophecies would have been disputable because people would argue it was written after the fact.
Right, Yeshua made many prophecies and he was fully man and fully God.
or plausibly made up by humans right?
If you want to call "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" a mere prediction be my guest.
No I cannot intelligently argue anything.
Oh yeah right, Jesus should of predicted the roman emperors for the next 200 years and the winning lottery ticket numbers.
I guess you are right about that. People probably would have believed the gospel without hesitation if Jesus would have predicted what you said.
If only it would have occurred to Jesus to do what you said.
Yes, reading the list of roman emperors would have been quite convincing.... Y-a-w-n
Yes it reasonable if the Roman emperors would have been listed zzzzzzzzzz.
True the most outlandish religion of all is secular humanism based upon the theories of neo-darwinism.
argument by rhetorical question
bad analogy
Thank you for your opinion.

Sheshonq

Is irrelevant to the claim made earlier, that no point of doctrine was impacted by OMITTED text. Congratulations on missing the point three times in a row.

Roger Pearse

These seem like dogmatic assertions of fringe beliefs (or at least, petitio principi). They don't seem very convincing to me.

But this thread now seems to be just stone-throwing, and is not the place to try to introduce fact and reason.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

Although interesting, the Papyrus in question, P115 http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/beast616.htm is dated 250 CE or later. We already knew from Irenaeus that some very early manuscripts had this reading. IMHO it doesn't greatly increase the external evidence for 616 rather than 666.

Andrew Criddle

blastula

Thank you for admitting you were wrong. I accept your apology.

spin

E. Dreams
F. Delusions (psychotic or drug induced)
G. Improvements based on faulty sources or understanding (eg Jesus on two animals in Mt 21:7)
H. Accretions from multiple retellings (everyone tells a story differently)
...

Could be any one but almost certainly a mixture of several. Truth, lies, errors, delusions, etc.


spin

Sheshonq

But you're the person who is dogmatically convinced that 4th century copies can be treated as if they were 1st century original, autograph manuscripts.

Given that unfortunate misconception, why would we care about what you found to be unconvincing? Your attitude suggests that you aren't evaluating the evidence objectively anyhow.

Handwaving as you exit, stage left - hoping nobody remembers that you have studiously avoided explaining why you treat 1st century autographs and 4th century copies as if there were no important differences.

Johnny Skeptic

Fact and reason regarding what may I ask?

arnoldo

Perhaps fact and reason that the OT/NT are fiction?

JoeWallack

JW:
As previously mentioned, trying to measure the Unknown difference between Originals and Extants is Subjective. JP Holding has an interesting excerpt here (emphasis mine):

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html#agree

JW:
Holding's scholarship is poor by the standards of this Forum and he can not be relied on as a primary source because he sometimes misquotes and often quotes out of context and therefore, everything he says must be checked. However, as a starting point note above that "Mark", the original Gospel, stands out as the most changed Gospel. Including this observation we have the following list indicating that the earlier we go in TransMission history, the more likely it is that there was change:

1) The original Gospel has been changed the most.

2) Common sense (always the best factor) tells us that earlier Christian writings had lower Christology and therefore would be more likely to be changed.

3) We have relatively little extant Before Christianity gained control suggesting that to some extent Christianity chose not to preserve earlier.

4) Patristic quotes that do not agree to the Extant are more common earlier than later.

5) The earliest extant is from "John", the last Gospel. Just what we would expect.

6) The Patristic evidence indicates that "Mark" was not considered authoritative until the Forged ending.

All these factors indicate it Likely that Textual Variation pre-Extant is greater than post and that the only evidence of obscuRanticism regarding coming to this conclusion is itself the charge of obscuRanticism.



Joseph