Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 03-15-2008, 03:18 PM

Looking over the content of last few posts, it appears that the direction now being taken is that it really doesn't matter at all what the actual Biblical texts really say, because what they do say, is not what they really mean, and what they really mean is not at all that which is written down in them.
Not a lot could be accomplished then by the studying of, or looking up exactly what any Bible texts do say, because what is written is not right, and what is the "right" or the correct understanding and interpretation of the text, is not found written in the texts.
(under any normal circumstances, such documents would simply be called "untrustworthy")
What a strange way for any god to convey his teachings and wishes to humanity.
No wonder christians can't agree on what the Bible teaches, and are always consigning different sects and denominations of their fellow believers to burn in hell for all of eternity.
Oh well, sure makes me glad that I'm not a christian.

Toto · 03-15-2008, 03:33 PM

Transmission of Euclidian text has been split to its own thread.

blastula · 03-15-2008, 03:38 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.

What strawman? Have you not read the OP?

remez · 03-16-2008, 09:39 AM

I apologize for my unavoidable absence. I have strange schedule. However, this coming week I will be even busier, I will respond as promptly as possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What are the oldest several existing copies of New Testament documents? If for instance the oldest several existing copies date to around 200 A.D., and were accurately copied after that, if they were originally written in say 75 A.D., no one knows that happened to the texts between 75 A.D. and 200 A.D.

John Rylands 130 AD found all the way over in Egypt
Bodmer Papyrus 150AD to 200AD
Reasonably...........
Consider the all of the patristic quotations.
Consider the same Gospel in several different languages all stating the same Gospel.
Consider the oral traditions.
Consider the whole picture
Consider that Aristotle stated that the unexamined life is not worth living.
So respectfully examine both sides of this issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

At any rate, as many skeptics have basically said, there is not a necessary correlation between accurate copying and the truth. Copies of the New York times are 100% accurate, but they are not always truthful.

Granted that is a big issue, but not the issue here. Textual purity is foundational to the issue you have raised here. Your truth issue does need to be examined, but first we need to examine how close are the scriptures we have today, related to the autographs. I gave you the standard conservative figure derived from Textual Criticism. So what level of certainty would you place on this issue of textually purity.

remez · 03-16-2008, 09:43 AM

[QUOTE=JoeWallack;5209639]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
Define "N.T.". What exactly is "N.T."?

I concur; I should have stated NT documents.

remez · 03-16-2008, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

The N.T. is scientifically 99.5% textually pure.
Reference: N.T. has approximately 20,000 lines of text.
Only 40 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.

None bearing any weight on doctrinal issues?
Really? Consider this, my previous affiliation as a believer was with a congregation that was (and yet is) adamant in its position that the Biblical "Feast Days" are to be kept, and can back up that claim with copious Scriptural citations.
With that doctrinal position in mind let's consider and compare texts of Acts 18:21 King James Version;

"But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this Feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus. "

with what is supposedly the same verse in The New International Version;

"But as he left, he promised, “I will come back if it is God's will.” Then he set sail from Ephesus."

Notice something lacking? If you were a life-long devout keeper of Yahweh's Feast Days, you most certainly would. TWELVE ! words gone missing in one single verse!
(same twelve words difference in the Greek too, as between the Stepens' Textus Receptus and the Westcott-Hort version)

Words comprising of;
1. Paul's personal statement of his urgency to be present at that Feast.
2. A New Testament reference that The Feast(s) were still being observed at that time, and suggestive that there would be more important matters that Paul needed attend to at that PARTICULAR time.
3. The "Feast" and "Jerusalem" holding places in the one text, easily found and referenced for hundreds of years, while being utterly obscured in the other.

OK, so in line with this thread, Which ONE of these pure verses is the ONE that is "99.5 % textually pure?"

You might be inclined to say that it doesn't make any significant doctrinal difference, (to you.) However, the point here IS that to them to whom it DOES make a difference, it makes a very significant doctrinal difference, one that is manifest in both belief and in conduct.

The alleged differences between the KJV and the NIV are a different issue. You should start a thread on it. The “KJV only” is a huge issue in to church today. As to your Paul reference, please explain the doctrinal issue you are exposing.

blastula · 03-16-2008, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

John Rylands 130 AD found all the way over in Egypt
Bodmer Papyrus 150AD to 200AD

Mere fragments. We don't know what the 1st century originals said.

JoeWallack · 03-16-2008, 10:15 AM

That Is Not My Dogma

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
Define "N.T.". What exactly is "N.T."?

I concur; I should have stated NT documents.

JW:
Ah, in the words of Inspector Clouseau, "Now we are getting somewhere!" One small step for son of mankind. Now:

Define "NT documents". What exactly is "NT documents"? The Disciple Andrew has been trying to help you here by guessing at statistics from NA. But NA is a modern creature peaced together like Frankenstein's monster. At the present rate of progress I fear that Jesus might actually return before you define to my satisfaction so let me try to help. You want to compare to original autographs, I've got that. But what original autographs? Be specific, as in Names. All the Names. Make me say "what" one more time and I'll have to re-watch Jules shooting Brett.

Joseph

SCRIPTURES, n.
The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

-Jay- · 03-16-2008, 01:01 PM

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

arnoldo · 03-16-2008, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastula

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

John Rylands 130 AD found all the way over in Egypt
Bodmer Papyrus 150AD to 200AD

Mere fragments. We don't know what the 1st century originals said.

At least we agree the originals were written in the 1st century.

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

03-15-2008, 03:18 PM	#71
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Looking over the content of last few posts, it appears that the direction now being taken is that it really doesn't matter at all what the actual Biblical texts really say, because what they do say, is not what they really mean, and what they really mean is not at all that which is written down in them. Not a lot could be accomplished then by the studying of, or looking up exactly what any Bible texts do say, because what is written is not right, and what is the "right" or the correct understanding and interpretation of the text, is not found written in the texts. (under any normal circumstances, such documents would simply be called "untrustworthy") What a strange way for any god to convey his teachings and wishes to humanity. No wonder christians can't agree on what the Bible teaches, and are always consigning different sects and denominations of their fellow believers to burn in hell for all of eternity. Oh well, sure makes me glad that I'm not a christian.

03-15-2008, 03:33 PM	#72
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Transmission of Euclidian text has been split to its own thread.

03-16-2008, 01:01 PM	#79
-Jay- Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Eastern U.S. Posts: 4,157	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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.