Freethought & Rationalism Archive

missus_gumby · 01-30-2002, 10:24 PM

Although ancient cave paintings are not 'written' communication per se, they are the pre-cursor to that system. A very quick search found <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/0110/06/world/world19.html" target="_blank">these</a>, which are dated at tens of thousands of years old.

Martin

thedoc · 01-31-2002, 04:58 AM

Thanks for Greeting Turtonm!

Don't get me wrong, I am aware that there are older known writings than what I was talking about. I was just trying to point out the accuracy and care that was taken in keeping the writings preserved over the years. In fact, I also looked at the very link you posted before I posted my first post. My intention was not to prove or even suggest that the scrolls at Qumran are "The Oldest" writings.

Jayhawker Soule · 01-31-2002, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by thedoc:
As a Born Again believer in Jesus Christ I pesonally believe that it is possible that there could be a copying error somewhere in the mix of things. But, I also believe that the message of the Bible as a whole has not been changed over the course of the years. That Ulitmate message is always "Love!"

As is the ultimate message of most children's fairytales. Nevertheless, while accepting this "Ultimate message" may well make you a nice person, it hardly sufficient to define Christianity. Furthermore, the issue goes far beyond minor copying error somewhere in the mix of things ...

Quote:

... Tischendorf believed he had found in the Codex Sinaiticus, a witness to the pure, uncorrupted text of the New Testament--and that the original texts were indeed written by the Apostles themselves. However, after the copy and recopy process that had taken place over fifteen centuries, original words had "in many passages undergone such serious modifications of meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the Apostles had actually written."

Some scholars today believe the Codex Sinaiticus was one of the books prepared by the Roman Emperor Constantine in the year 331 C.E., when he ordered fifty manuscripts of the Bible to be produced. It is even possibly older and therefore closer to the original, than the Codex Vaticanus.

...

Omissions in the Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanes

But now the question was asked, how should one treat biblical passages that NEVER APPEAR IN THE CODEX SINAITICUS OR CODEX VATICANES? That is, OMISSIONS of familiar stories in the oldest biblical texts were in some ways, more intriguing than what was in them.

For example, in the eighth chapter of the gospel of John, is a story of a woman who was about to be stoned to death for her adultery. Jesus intercedes with the now famous line, "he that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone." One by one, the accusers, after pondering the statement, quietly leave the scene. This story does not appear ANYWHERE in either the Codex Sinaiticus or the Codex Vaticanus.

...

Other omissions in the Codex Sinaiticus include the following:

The introduction to Mark reads "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." In Codex Sinaiticus, the phrase "the Son of God" does not appear.
Missing in Codex Sinaiticus is the sentence in Luke 11, "You know not what manner of spirit you are of. For the son of man is come not to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
In chapter 17 of Matthew, the disciples of Jesus fail to cast out the devil from a possessed (epileptic) man. In verse 21, Jesus explains that this requires much prayer and fasting. This explanation does NOT appear in the Codex Sinaiticus.
In Mark 9, the writer describes hell as a place 'where the worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched' (a phrase taken out of Isaiah). This description does not appear in Sinaiticus.
In Luke 24:51 we are told how Jesus left his disciples following the resurrection. He blessed them, was parted from them, "and was carried up into heaven". This last phrase "and was carried up into heaven" does not appear in Sinaiticus. (According to the textual critic C.S.C. Williams, if this omission is correct, then "there is no reference at all to the Ascension in the original text of the Gospels". (James Bentley, SECRETS OF MOUNT SINAI, p 131)
In John 5, we are told how Jesus came across a pool with many sick people lying in it. The following verse however is missing from Codex Sinaiticus "for an angel went down at a certain season into the pool and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatever disease he had."
Even more important, the last twelve verses of the gospel of St. Mark which describes all of Jesus' appearances to his followers, are missing from the Codex Sinaiticus. The Sinaiticus version of Mark ends with the account of the three women who visit Jesus' tomb: After seeing a youth in a white robe, the women "went out and ran away from the tomb, beside themselves with terror. They said nothing to anybody for they were afraid."

This last item has been the most controversial. As James H. Charlesworth (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Princeton Theological Seminary) has written on the subject: "Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Syriacus, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Bobiensis do not contain the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark. This is a notable omission: it is these verses only which contain the description of Jesus' resurrection appearance. Since Mark's account seems to be not only the earliest but also that on which Matthew and Luke based their accounts, a question arises: What is the basis for the accounts of Jesus' bodily resurrection according to Matthew, Luke and John? [emphasis added - RD]"

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/NEWTEST2.TXT" target="_blank">from this site</a>

[ January 31, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

thedoc · 01-31-2002, 10:15 AM

Thanks for the link, it was very interesting. Maybe you can answer a question for me ReasonableDoubt. Do you know what was used in the translation of the 1611 KJV of the bible? If you have a recommended book or website on the topic I would appreciate it.

Vorkosigan · 01-31-2002, 10:44 PM

The alternate ending of Mark appeared quite early, as Tatian used it in his Diatesseron.

Evan Powell has argued that John 21 is actually the original ending of Mark.
<a href="http://home.att.net/~david.r.ross/Mark/" target="_blank">This site here discusses why in-depth</a>. A very interesting argument. The argument begins 1/2way down and is covered in great detail, but the whole page/site on Mark is worth reading.

Michael

[ January 31, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]

lpetrich · 01-31-2002, 11:26 PM

If I was an omnipotent being who wanted a revelation to be understood by all of humanity, I would not feel content to reveal that revelation to a tiny subset to humanity, and then let it get corrupted and misunderstood.

I'd make the message always present to all of humanity, perhaps by implanting it in everybody's consciousness.

But that has not happened.

Therefore, a reasonable conclusion is that there is no such entity.

Haran · 02-01-2002, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:
If I was an omnipotent being who wanted a revelation to be understood by all of humanity, I would not feel content to reveal that revelation to a tiny subset to humanity, and then let it get corrupted and misunderstood.

I'd make the message always present to all of humanity, perhaps by implanting it in everybody's consciousness.

But that has not happened.

Therefore, a reasonable conclusion is that there is no such entity.

Interpreted:

"Because God doesn't act the way I would, he must not exist."

lpetrich, you know better...

If there is a God, then I would think that he might know a little better than us how to run his own creation. But then that's only my opinion.

Haran

Asha'man · 02-01-2002, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran:
 If there is a God, then I would think that he might know a little better than us how to run his own creation. But then that's only my opinion.

Ok, Haran, God knows better. Clearly, since he loves me, and wants me to be happy, and wants me to go to heaven, he is under absolutely no obligation to present his instructions in a way that I can comprehend and accept. Really, that makes sense�.he just knows better. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

FreeToThink · 02-01-2002, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran:


Interpreted:

"Because God doesn't act the way I would, he must not exist."

lpetrich, you know better...

If there is a God, then I would think that he might know a little better than us how to run his own creation. But then that's only my opinion.

Haran

Yes, I imagine he [sic] would. And the amazing thing is, that Christians seem to think that they alone can know the intentions of this all powerful being.

CX · 02-01-2002, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by thedoc:
Thanks for the link, it was very interesting. Maybe you can answer a question for me ReasonableDoubt. Do you know what was used in the translation of the 1611 KJV of the bible? If you have a recommended book or website on the topic I would appreciate it.

Late (14th and 15th centuries, I believe) manuscripts from the Byzantine Family. Also the 1611 KJV was significant edited for composition rather than content (written in the "King's English" don't you know).

By comparison the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament on which most modern translations are based (notably NIV) is from much early Alexandrian manuscripts which are generally considered more reliable than the Byzantine family except by fundamentalist protestants who are theologically invested in the "authorized version".

01-31-2002, 10:44 PM	#25
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	The alternate ending of Mark appeared quite early, as Tatian used it in his Diatesseron. Evan Powell has argued that John 21 is actually the original ending of Mark. <a href="http://home.att.net/~david.r.ross/Mark/" target="_blank">This site here discusses why in-depth</a>. A very interesting argument. The argument begins 1/2way down and is covered in great detail, but the whole page/site on Mark is worth reading. Michael [ January 31, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

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

01-30-2002, 10:24 PM	#21
missus_gumby Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: UK Posts: 1,898	Although ancient cave paintings are not 'written' communication per se, they are the pre-cursor to that system. A very quick search found <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/0110/06/world/world19.html" target="_blank">these</a>, which are dated at tens of thousands of years old. Martin

01-31-2002, 04:58 AM	#22
thedoc Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 14	Thanks for Greeting Turtonm! Don't get me wrong, I am aware that there are older known writings than what I was talking about. I was just trying to point out the accuracy and care that was taken in keeping the writings preserved over the years. In fact, I also looked at the very link you posted before I posted my first post. My intention was not to prove or even suggest that the scrolls at Qumran are "The Oldest" writings.

01-31-2002, 10:15 AM	#24
thedoc Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 14	Thanks for the link, it was very interesting. Maybe you can answer a question for me ReasonableDoubt. Do you know what was used in the translation of the 1611 KJV of the bible? If you have a recommended book or website on the topic I would appreciate it.

01-31-2002, 11:26 PM	#26
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	If I was an omnipotent being who wanted a revelation to be understood by all of humanity, I would not feel content to reveal that revelation to a tiny subset to humanity, and then let it get corrupted and misunderstood. I'd make the message always present to all of humanity, perhaps by implanting it in everybody's consciousness. But that has not happened. Therefore, a reasonable conclusion is that there is no such entity.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.