Freethought & Rationalism Archive

CX · 12-31-2002, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX
The vast majority of Greek MSS are fragmentary.

Some additional info...

Earliest MSS evidence:

P52 2nd century contains GJn 18:31-33,37-38
P90 2nd Century contains 18:36-19:1, 19:2-7
P98 possibly 2nd Century contains Rev 1:13-20
P32 ca. 200 C.E. contains Titus 1:11-15, 2:3-8
P46 ca. 200 C.E. contains lengthy portions of 9 Pauline and Deuteropauline epistles; none is complete
P64 ca. 200 contains portions of GMt
P66 ca. 200 contains portions of GJn

I'll leave it to you to look up the remaining MSS

thebeast · 12-31-2002, 12:58 PM

Like I said: If a man doesn't want to believe, even a resurrection won't change his mind.

So what do you infidels believe in? Gaaaaaaaa, the earth gadesse...? Ptui!

CX · 12-31-2002, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by thebeast
Fragmentary in the sense that they are isolated, the letters of Paul are not all together, as in the bible, you have a letter here and a letter there, but the letters are complete, not fragmented.

So the documents are full documents, not shards likethe scrolls.

No. Fragmentary in the sense that they do not contain the complete text. See my previous post regarding MSS evidence before the 3rd century. Codex Sinaiticus in the 4th century is the first complete complete of the NT, though it also includes the Letter To Barnbas and the Shepherd of Hermas which were apparently considered canonical by some early church fathers. There are 7 books of the NT which have no MSS evidence prior to Sinaiticus.

CX · 12-31-2002, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by thebeast
Like I said: If a man doesn't want to believe, even a resurrection won't change his mind.

So what do you infidels believe in? Gaaaaaaaa, the earth gadesse...? Ptui!

Please check your private messages.

Hawkingfan · 12-31-2002, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by thebeast
and every word in it is accurate. In fact, the bible is the most accurately transmitted document on the face of the earth,

Then I challenge you, beast, to put your money where your mouth is. You will find a new thread here specifically for you with inconsistent passages that will require NO interpretations. They concern numbers, math, and facts from at least 2 different sources from the Bible but do not state the same thing. Things like census counts, ages, etc.

I want you to refute each one and prove to us that it is indeed accurate.

thebeast · 12-31-2002, 02:26 PM

The principal difference between the spirit of the law, and the letter of the law, is that the spirit of the law reflects understanding, while the letter points to nit picking. There are differences between the texts, that doesn't invalidate them.

The bible is a legal document. It's principal function is not to nit pick and be a perfectly accurate to the very last degree of perfection. Such accuracy is not necessary to reach exact legal conclusions. The bible is a guideline to judge what constitute truth, and what degree of accuracy is sufficient to establish truth. it provides models and situations that allow one reader to gain understanding and wisdom in most cases where judgements must be rendered. The degree of analysis that you subject it to, is irrational and unwarranted. No document in existence can meet the standard ofaccuracy you require of the bible.

With a microscope, you can go as small as you want to. But to find a nit, you don't need to go too far.

Show me a document that meets the standard you ask for here? Anyone of you. Show me what you believe in, and what document is more accurate than the bible.

What you consider a right standard of judgement. If you have better to offer. You don't. None of you have anything better to offer. Maimonides was a homo, and mohamed was a pedophile, and Buddha doesn't exist, and Rama is a fantasy that belongs in lala land.

thebeast · 12-31-2002, 02:37 PM

Tell me Hawk, do you believe in Gaaaaaaaaaa the earth gaddesse...?

Or do you think the whole gaaa saga is nothing but garbage?

Thomas Cassidy · 12-31-2002, 03:16 PM

May I jump in here? I teach Textual Criticism and Manuscript Evidence at a Seminary here in San Diego.

To the best of my knowledge there are presently about 5,580 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. Of these 5,580 manuscripts, most of them (about 5,350) represent the Byzantine, or Eastern textform. Of the remaining 230, about 50 represent the Alexandrian textform, and the rest are most often refered to as "mixed" texts, exhibiting characteristics of the two primary textforms.

In addition to the 5,580 Greek manuscripts, there are over 10,000 representing the three major catagories of Latin manuscripts, the Italic, or Old Latin, the Vulgate of Jerome, and the Vulgate of Clement (Clementine Vulgate, the offical Latin Text of the Church of Rome today). Add in several hundred other manuscripts of ancient vernaculars such as Coptic, Georgian, Aramiac, etc, and the total number comes to about 20,000 manuscripts. None of the manuscripts in question is complete. All are lacking portions of the canon. The most complete of the codices, Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B), lack leaves and portions of the New Testament. The most incomplete may only have 30 or 40 words on it.

It must be pointed out that, of the over 5,000 NT manuscripts presently extant, their agreement is astounding. There are only about 9,000 differences between the two competing textforms. It must also be noted that every manuscript will contains scribal errors, but these are easily weeded out by means of the homogeneity of the textucopia collectively.

thebeast · 12-31-2002, 03:22 PM

Thank you sir...

thebeast · 12-31-2002, 03:43 PM

See, now you have it. I expect all of you to give the bible the proper recognition, and not parrot the lies that it is somewhat changed and corrupted by multiple translations.

This fallacy is usually perpetrated by the pagans because they hate the bible, and not because it is true. Like islamanios, who say with a straight face that the bible is corrupted, when evidence proves without a doubt that this is false, yet they maintain the same lies without shame, as if evidence was just passing through an empty space between their ears, without a ripple. And they react like that because mohamed's religion is very very oppressive, and anyone who dares to challenge mohamed's dogmatic fallacies is immediately impaled and his children sold into slavery.

Burka anyone...?

If you maintain that the bible is somewhat a canard, you are the canard quacking... but I expect that from pagans.

Truth is not what pagans are looking for, pagans look for reasons to maintain their unbelief, and anything will do.

Therefore, unbelief is not ignorance, rather, it is the manifestation of a deeper and darker cause, that which reveals the intent of the heart.

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

12-31-2002, 12:58 PM	#52
thebeast Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: toronto Posts: 42	Like I said: If a man doesn't want to believe, even a resurrection won't change his mind. So what do you infidels believe in? Gaaaaaaaa, the earth gadesse...? Ptui!

12-31-2002, 02:26 PM	#56
thebeast Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: toronto Posts: 42	The principal difference between the spirit of the law, and the letter of the law, is that the spirit of the law reflects understanding, while the letter points to nit picking. There are differences between the texts, that doesn't invalidate them. The bible is a legal document. It's principal function is not to nit pick and be a perfectly accurate to the very last degree of perfection. Such accuracy is not necessary to reach exact legal conclusions. The bible is a guideline to judge what constitute truth, and what degree of accuracy is sufficient to establish truth. it provides models and situations that allow one reader to gain understanding and wisdom in most cases where judgements must be rendered. The degree of analysis that you subject it to, is irrational and unwarranted. No document in existence can meet the standard ofaccuracy you require of the bible. With a microscope, you can go as small as you want to. But to find a nit, you don't need to go too far. Show me a document that meets the standard you ask for here? Anyone of you. Show me what you believe in, and what document is more accurate than the bible. What you consider a right standard of judgement. If you have better to offer. You don't. None of you have anything better to offer. Maimonides was a homo, and mohamed was a pedophile, and Buddha doesn't exist, and Rama is a fantasy that belongs in lala land.

12-31-2002, 02:37 PM	#57
thebeast Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: toronto Posts: 42	Tell me Hawk, do you believe in Gaaaaaaaaaa the earth gaddesse...? Or do you think the whole gaaa saga is nothing but garbage?

12-31-2002, 03:16 PM	#58
Thomas Cassidy Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 42	May I jump in here? I teach Textual Criticism and Manuscript Evidence at a Seminary here in San Diego. To the best of my knowledge there are presently about 5,580 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. Of these 5,580 manuscripts, most of them (about 5,350) represent the Byzantine, or Eastern textform. Of the remaining 230, about 50 represent the Alexandrian textform, and the rest are most often refered to as "mixed" texts, exhibiting characteristics of the two primary textforms. In addition to the 5,580 Greek manuscripts, there are over 10,000 representing the three major catagories of Latin manuscripts, the Italic, or Old Latin, the Vulgate of Jerome, and the Vulgate of Clement (Clementine Vulgate, the offical Latin Text of the Church of Rome today). Add in several hundred other manuscripts of ancient vernaculars such as Coptic, Georgian, Aramiac, etc, and the total number comes to about 20,000 manuscripts. None of the manuscripts in question is complete. All are lacking portions of the canon. The most complete of the codices, Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B), lack leaves and portions of the New Testament. The most incomplete may only have 30 or 40 words on it. It must be pointed out that, of the over 5,000 NT manuscripts presently extant, their agreement is astounding. There are only about 9,000 differences between the two competing textforms. It must also be noted that every manuscript will contains scribal errors, but these are easily weeded out by means of the homogeneity of the textucopia collectively.

12-31-2002, 03:22 PM	#59
thebeast Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: toronto Posts: 42	Thank you sir...

12-31-2002, 03:43 PM	#60
thebeast Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: toronto Posts: 42	See, now you have it. I expect all of you to give the bible the proper recognition, and not parrot the lies that it is somewhat changed and corrupted by multiple translations. This fallacy is usually perpetrated by the pagans because they hate the bible, and not because it is true. Like islamanios, who say with a straight face that the bible is corrupted, when evidence proves without a doubt that this is false, yet they maintain the same lies without shame, as if evidence was just passing through an empty space between their ears, without a ripple. And they react like that because mohamed's religion is very very oppressive, and anyone who dares to challenge mohamed's dogmatic fallacies is immediately impaled and his children sold into slavery. Burka anyone...? If you maintain that the bible is somewhat a canard, you are the canard quacking... but I expect that from pagans. Truth is not what pagans are looking for, pagans look for reasons to maintain their unbelief, and anything will do. Therefore, unbelief is not ignorance, rather, it is the manifestation of a deeper and darker cause, that which reveals the intent of the heart.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.