Doug Shaver

Maybe it finally occurred to him that he could do the same thing after an oral debate that he always does after a print debate -- simply say, "I kicked his butt."

stephan huller

Exactly. This is the real question. The answer is of course, is that there is no point to any of this - other than attracting new 'followers.' That's the real point. It's not like there are people 'sittijng on the fence' - ljust waiting to confirm their beliefs about ... whether the scriptures have been preserved exactly as they were from the beginning.

Most religious people believe in God in spite of the state of the scriptures and the disbelief in God that is established in atheists has little to do with whether John the Baptist ate honeycakes or locusts in the desert. I think an all out cage match, winner take all would be far more intriguing. This sort of thing is like watching a documentary on recovering alcoholics. It's nice but who cares, really.

aa5874

But, textual reliability of the NEW TESTAMENT does not need any argument. It is ALREADY KNOWN that there are MULTIPLE VERSIONS of the the NT and possible hundreds of variants of the Extant text.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual..._New_Testament

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece

There is NO need for any argument about the textual reliability of the NT. It makes no sense to argue against the data.

John Kesler

Perhaps the sponsors wanted this topic addressed, but I think a much more relevant subject is whether the bodily resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation for the success of Christianity. This is especially so since Holding wrote The Impossible Faith (or via: amazon.co.uk) and Carrier countered with Not the Impossible Faith (or via: amazon.co.uk), books which assume the affirmative and negative views respectively.

Switch89

With the gospel of John: There's an excellent book out called "The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor" (or via: amazon.co.uk). The very title of that book says it all. Also: if read the last few verses of John 20 it sounds like the conclusion of the gospel. But then the gospel of John goes on for whole 'nother chapter!

As for Revelation: If you look at the last footnote on this page it is mentioned that one scholar "speculates" that Revelation was reworked. I read somewhere, though I forget where, that the majority view in NT scholarship now is that Revelation was a book that reworked older material.

aeebee50

Not fair, you scared me.:redface:

aeebee50

I will set my calendar for the debate.

Zaphod

Ten bucks says the topic will be changed at the last minute to accommodate Holding.:devil1:

Joan of Bark

Perhaps nothing, but in America at least the Bible is used as a weapon by fundamentalists. It's reliability as a text matters for both sides in the debates over morality.

Joan of Bark

The last twelve verses of Mark being the most obvious example. This should be a lopsided debate.