Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 03-13-2008, 05:14 PM

If the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure, what does that imply that is useful for Christians? What does textually pure mean?

GenesisNemesis · 03-13-2008, 05:24 PM

99.5%? Don't you mean 100% (remez)?

remez · 03-13-2008, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure, what does that imply that is useful for Christians? What does textually pure mean?

It means that rationally you cannot use these statements……………..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

3 - No one knows what the originals said,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Since you do not have a clue what the originals said

as a crutch to be so dismissive. Because we are 99.5% certain we know what the were.

remez · 03-13-2008, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenesisNemesis

99.5%? Don't you mean 100% (remez)?

Not scientifically.

GenesisNemesis · 03-13-2008, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

Not scientifically.

Of course. Faithfully, it's 100%. Scientifically, it's 99.5%...

Have any evidence?

remez · 03-13-2008, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

If so, then we have no ancient literature of any sort, never mind the bible.

Quote:

You are a positivist, so first I appeal to the science of textual Criticism. This branch of science stands defiantly opposed to your assessment of the N.T.

The N.T. is scientifically 99.5% textually pure.
Reference: N.T. has approximately 20,000 lines of text.
Only 400 lines are in doubt. That’s about 400 words. None bearing any weight on doctrinal issues.

The N.T. gains further support from patristic quotations

Firstly, textual criticism is indeed the art (not really a science) of healing damage to the texts transmitted by copying from antiquity. It certainly does reject the wild claims of non-transmission above. We can watch the transmission of a work between the 5th and 15th centuries for some texts, and we do not see these vast changes in them. When I was looking at Jerome's Chronicle, which is a work that was completely reformatted by some scribe in the middle ages, I nevertheless did not find such changes from the 5th century manuscript that I used as a basis.

This is general stuff, applicable to all texts. The NT is the best preserved ancient literary text, as I think we all know (not least because the Greeks who copied all these things in the middle ages copied bibles most often).

The specific statistics given are unfamiliar to me, but may be correct. Whatever the values are, they will be higher than for any other ancient text, given the wealth of manuscripts and their early date.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

I enjoy your style.
Agree with your assessment the that healing portion is an art, however the detection of variants and discernment of purity is science.

remez · 03-13-2008, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenesisNemesis

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

Not scientifically.

Of course. Faithfully, it's 100%. Scientifically, it's 99.5%...

Have any evidence?

again....

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

….. first I appeal to the science of textual Criticism. This branch of science stands defiantly opposed to your assessment of the N.T.

The N.T. is scientifically 99.5% textually pure.
Reference: N.T. has approximately 20,000 lines of text.
Only 400 lines are in doubt. That’s about 400 words. None bearing any weight on doctrinal issues.

The N.T. gains further support from patristic quotations

Now on this issue is that 100% faith without evidence?

Sheshonq · 03-13-2008, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure, what does that imply that is useful for Christians? What does textually pure mean?

It means that rationally you cannot use these statements……………..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Since you do not have a clue what the originals said

as a crutch to be so dismissive. Because we are 99.5% certain we know what the were.

No. Our earliest manuscripts do not stretch back that far.

A lack of disagreement could also be explained by scribes aggressively weeding out discrepancies in manuscripts centuries after the alleged events.

remez · 03-13-2008, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

It means that rationally you cannot use these statements……………..

as a crutch to be so dismissive. Because we are 99.5% certain we know what the were.

No. Our earliest manuscripts do not stretch back that far.

A lack of disagreement could also be explained by scribes aggressively weeding out discrepancies in manuscripts centuries after the alleged events.

I did not give you an opinion.
So you need to back up yours with something factual.

Sheshonq · 03-13-2008, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

No. Our earliest manuscripts do not stretch back that far.

A lack of disagreement could also be explained by scribes aggressively weeding out discrepancies in manuscripts centuries after the alleged events.

I did not give you an opinion.

No, you gave me a mistake and tried to dress it up as fact.

You also gave me your idea, but it was predicated upon an assumption that we know isn't true (i.e., that we have access to time-stamped originals).

Quote:

So you need to back up yours with something factual.

Uh, wrong. You're the one arguing for 99.5% accuracy. You haven't even scratched the surface of making that case stick yet.

Quote:

as a crutch to be so dismissive. Because we are 99.5% certain we know what the were.

Incorrect. We are reasonably sure we know that copies made centuries later looked like. Notice the difference that precision makes in the phrasing.

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

03-13-2008, 05:14 PM	#21
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	If the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure, what does that imply that is useful for Christians? What does textually pure mean?

03-13-2008, 05:24 PM	#22
GenesisNemesis Contributor Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A pale blue oblate spheroid. Posts: 20,351	99.5%? Don't you mean 100% (remez)?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.