May 31, 2009

[rwahrens]

Hey well because I didn't read your views I guess that means all those other views from scholars etc. are wrong.

To set you straight can you tell me the sources which you site for the many changes over 1700 years in the texts?

as far as I know, from what I read from scholars that study the texts, they have stayed almost completely unchanged from their original form for 2000 years (if you use the dead sea scrolls as an example) , and if you use all 24,000 extant manuscript as evidence it is overpowering more accurate than any other written work in history.

Homer having the only other closest work and that is based only 500 manuscripts.

We know Alexander the Great exists from only 10 documents or so, but I don't see people arguing that he was just a myth.

Again the more shoddy your learning on the subject the easier it is to discount.

Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

He notes that thousands of changes have been made in the bible, and cites dozens of sources to back up what he says. And, yes, he IS a "scholar"! Your assertion that they are virtually unchanged is sheer crap. We don't even HAVE the originals, so how the heck can you assert that we KNOW how the originals read, anyway?

Oh, and cite me a source that proves we have 24,000 extant manuscripts about the bible from the original period proving your claim. You can't, because the surviving manuscripts today are, at best, no earlier than the second century - certainly the ones that hold a majority of the content. The only first century documents are mere fragments, and are not completely without detractors.

 

[UBERDOINK]

Your assertion that they are virtually unchanged is sheer crap. We don't even HAVE the originals, so how the heck can you assert that we KNOW how the originals read, anyway?

I love that one lone "scholar" that stands against the tides of evidence to "prove" his point. That is a load of crap.

again, let me cite the dead sea scrolls for an authoritative example. They are 2 thousand years old or so, and were the biblical passage as written down and understood at that time. Scholars were amazed at how the text was unchanged from the modern version of the bible we now hold... SO... to PROVE the point, for 2000 years we know the text hasn't changed, it is now up to someone to PROVE it has changed, substantial and that this evidence, ACCEPTED by history scholars world wide is NOT true.

 

[rwahrens]

I love that one lone "scholar" that stands against the tides of evidence to "prove" his point. That is a load of crap.

again, let me cite the dead sea scrolls for an authoritative example. They are 2 thousand years old or so, and were the biblical passage as written down and understood at that time. Scholars were amazed at how the text was unchanged from the modern version of the bible we now hold... SO... to PROVE the point, for 2000 years we know the text hasn't changed, it is now up to someone to PROVE it has changed, substantial and that this evidence, ACCEPTED by history scholars world wide is NOT true.

I say again, look at his book. He cites numerous sources to show his points, he is not alone. ...and the Dead Sea scrolls do NOT comprise all of the bible, only spare sections of it. He cites examples where the text has changed, too.

Read it before you scoff.

Oh, and please cite your source for the 24,000 extant documents from the first century.

 

[UBERDOINK]

Oh, and please cite your source for the 24,000 extant documents from the first century.

i meant for the bible as a whole, for your New Testament question they are 4000 manuscripts that we currently possess.

Some good examples are:

1. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Siniaticus

These are two excellent parchment copies of the entire New Testament which date from the 4th century (325-450 A.D.).{5}

2. Older Papyrii

Earlier still, fragments and papyrus copies of portions of the New Testament date from 100 to 200 years (180-225 A.D.) before Vaticanus and Sinaticus. The outstanding ones are the Chester Beatty Papyrus (P45, P46, P47) and the Bodmer Papyrus II, XIV, XV (P46, P75).

From these five manuscripts alone, we can construct all of Luke, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, and portions of Matthew, Mark, Acts, and Revelation. Only the Pastoral Epistles (Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy) and the General Epistles (James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1, 2, and 3 John) and Philemon are excluded.{6}

3. Oldest Fragment

Perhaps the earliest piece of Scripture surviving is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John 18:31-33 and 37. It is called the Rylands Papyrus (P52) and dates from 130 A.D., having been found in Egypt. The Rylands Papyrus has forced the critics to place the fourth gospel back into the first century, abandoning their earlier assertion that it could not have been written then by the Apostle John.{7}

4. This manuscript evidence creates a bridge of extant papyrus and parchment fragments and copies of the New Testament stretching back to almost the end of the first century.

Again, please study the material before you claim it's false.

 

[Schuyler]

iAgain, please study the material before you claim it's false.

I can prove that today we have an accurate copy of the Book of Mormon. We don't have originals because they, oddly enough, were written on tablets of gold in a language that could only be read if you wore some magic glasses obtained from the angel Moroni.

 

[rwahrens]

i meant for the bible as a whole, for your New Testament question they are 4000 manuscripts that we currently possess.

Some good examples are:

1. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Siniaticus

These are two excellent parchment copies of the entire New Testament which date from the 4th century (325-450 A.D.).{5}

2. Older Papyrii

Earlier still, fragments and papyrus copies of portions of the New Testament date from 100 to 200 years (180-225 A.D.) before Vaticanus and Sinaticus. The outstanding ones are the Chester Beatty Papyrus (P45, P46, P47) and the Bodmer Papyrus II, XIV, XV (P46, P75).

From these five manuscripts alone, we can construct all of Luke, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, and portions of Matthew, Mark, Acts, and Revelation. Only the Pastoral Epistles (Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy) and the General Epistles (James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1, 2, and 3 John) and Philemon are excluded.{6}

3. Oldest Fragment

Perhaps the earliest piece of Scripture surviving is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John 18:31-33 and 37. It is called the Rylands Papyrus (P52) and dates from 130 A.D., having been found in Egypt. The Rylands Papyrus has forced the critics to place the fourth gospel back into the first century, abandoning their earlier assertion that it could not have been written then by the Apostle John.{7}

4. This manuscript evidence creates a bridge of extant papyrus and parchment fragments and copies of the New Testament stretching back to almost the end of the first century.

Again, please study the material before you claim it's false.

These are two excellent parchment copies of the entire New Testament which date from the 4th century (325-450 A.D.)

Not first century, plenty of time for mistakes, and other changes. Oh, and also, just in time for Constantine and Eusibius to publish their versions of it, too in establishing the RCC!

Earlier still, fragments and papyrus copies of portions of...

You are going to assert that five different documents from different times are going to reconstruct the original text of the new Testament documents you cite? ...and they date from no earlier than 180CE??

It is called the Rylands Papyrus (P52) and dates from 130 A.D.

Again, nothing here from the first century. A hundred years is plenty of time for mistakes, changes of various kinds for different agendas to take place.

nothing you cite changes or disproves anything Ehrman says in his book.

Again, read it before you criticize it.

 

[UBERDOINK]

I can prove that today we have an accurate copy of the Book of Mormon.

I can prove we have an accurate copy of the Websters dictionary, I guess that means all my other points are invalid. Sorry if I don't follow?

My point being, is that why isn't it reasonable to say that ancient texts, that have proven valid over eons, could ALSO give us valid incite onto UFO and Supernatural events?

Why is anyone that says that dismissed out of hand? or based on faulty understanding of the source material.

 

[UBERDOINK]

You are going to assert that five different documents from different times are going to reconstruct the original text of the new Testament documents you cite? ...and they date from no earlier than 180CE??

no historians say that, and can prove it by USING the documents to reconstruct that text's.

Which again, PROVES that if as early as 180AD, till the modern bible we now hold, changes are NOT substantial, then please prove everyone just decided to stop changing things before then? where is the EVIDENCE for this?

 

[Schuyler]

I can prove we have an accurate copy of the Websters dictionary, I guess that means all my other points are invalid. Sorry if I don't follow?

My point being, is that why isn't it reasonable to say that ancient texts, that have proven valid over eons, could ALSO give us valid incite onto UFO and Supernatural events?

Why is anyone that says that dismissed out of hand? or based on faulty understanding of the source material.

If you are equating Webster's Dictionary with the Book if Mormon, I'm sorry, I don't follow. The Book of Mormon is a book 'of biblical proportions' and treated as such that tells a vast and complex story of civilizations rising and falling on the North & South American continents, of Jesus using the time between his crucifixion and resurrection to visit the Americas to preach, and of a vast war which culminated at Elmira, New York. It's full of sub-plots, morality plays, and all manner of fact and begats.

And my point being that proving a text has not changed has NOTHING TO DO with the truth of the matter. You don't believe in the stories in the Book of Mormon, do you? It's a work of fiction. That it has been accurately copied is a moot point.

The ancient texts have NOT 'been proven valid over the eons.' They have simply survived. If you claim they have survived in perfect or near-perfect form, I don't really have a problem with that part of the argument. Survival has nothing to do with validity. If Mark Twain survives for 10,000 years in its original form, that would be great. But it is still a work of fiction.

 

[rwahrens]

no historians say that, and can prove it by USING the documents to reconstruct that text's.

Which again, PROVES that if as early as 180AD, till the modern bible we now hold, changes are NOT substantial, then please prove everyone just decided to stop changing things before then? where is the EVIDENCE for this?

Again, you are criticizing Ehrman before you read him or his evidence. Thus, anything you say is not valid, since you are ignorant of his points and evidence. You keep asking for it, but I GAVE it to you. You just discount it without reading it or addressing it.

 

[UBERDOINK]

Again, you are criticizing Ehrman before you read him or his evidence.

Well in skimming his document (like you have with other writers refuting him, which can you tell me how many writers, the thousands of them, that refute your hero you have read?)

one of his points is the changes here is an example, of one of his "variants" again, the devil (for you) is in the details.

For example, here are some of the Greek variants for the simple line, “Jesus loves Paul.”2
‘Ιησούς αγάπα Παυλον -- [Jesus—ee-ay-sus / loves—agapa / Paul—paulan]
‘Ιησούς αγάπα τον Παυλον -- [Jesus loves the Paul]
ό ‘Ιησούς αγάπα Παυλον -- [The Jesus loves Paul]
ό ‘Ιησούς αγάπα τον Παυλον -- [The Jesus loves the Paul]
Παυλον ‘Ιησούς αγάπα -- [Paul Jesus loves]
τον Παυλον ‘Ιησούς αγάπα -- [The Paul Jesus loves]
Παυλον ό ‘Ιησούς αγάπα -- [Paul the Jesus loves]
τον Παυλον ό ‘Ιησούς αγάπα -- [The Paul the Jesus loves]
αγάπα ‘Ιησούς Παυλον -- [Loves Jesus Paul]
αγάπα ‘Ιησούς τον Παυλον -- [Loves Jesus the Paul]
αγάπα ό ‘Ιησούς Παυλον -- [Loves the Jesus Paul]

If such a simple sentence as ‘Jesus loves Paul’ could have so many insignificant variations, a mere 400,000 variants among the NT manuscripts seems like an almost negligible amount."

So when he says, wow look at all the changes, here is the bulk of the kinds of "changes" you will find.

CAN YOU address any substantial changes?

 

[Schuyler]

CAN YOU address any substantial changes?

Who cares? The issue is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. It's a side issue like how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

 

[UBERDOINK]

Who cares? The issue is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. It's a side issue like how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

sooo... I guess you realize to prove your point you would have to study, and probably see that you are wrong.

But who wants to learn about what they believe! boring! why don't we just watch american idol

 

[rwahrens]

Ok, I'm tired of wasting time on this.

The fact is, the bible is 1700 years old, give or take, various parts are either older or newer, but NONE of these documents are two thousand years old.

We don't know who wrote them. We may have names, but there are no contemporaneous documents telling us who these gents were. So we don't really know who they may have been, or what their agendas may have been.

In spite of your assertions, we really don't have the originals, and there ARE differences, which we can't really tell what they may have been in all cases, nor how close or different they may be.

The actual bible was canonized over a period of hundreds of years - the last book (Revelations, which Marzulli depends upon for his claims) was added as late as the twelfth or thirteenth century. (I forget which)

Lots of stuff, we know, was left out, because we have found come of it, buried to keep it from being destroyed! We know much of that was for doctrinal purposes, to prevent competing ideas from gaining traction.

So their veracity is questionable.

This is my point as regards Marzulli. He takes this book, adds in some Jewish mythology and claims to know the truth!

Poppycock.

I am finished with your arrogant arguments in this thread, you exhibit a partial knowledge gained from Wikipedia, but obviously have only a sketchy knowledge of real history, and thus, only are here to muddy the waters.

Noise, not signal.

Good night.

 

[Schuyler]

sooo... I guess you realize to prove your point you would have to study, and probably see that you are wrong.

But who wants to learn about what they believe! boring! why don't we just watch american idol

Boy, you are thick. Never seen it. (sigh) WHAT THE FUCK does the accuracy of a given text have to do with its relevance in history? Does the fact that it is an accurate reproduction make it true? Does the fact that in Genesis it says that 'god made the earth in six days and on the seventh day he rested' and that this is an accurate representation of the original text make it true? Does it make it important? Does it make it factual?

What's your point here, Uberdoink? Are you seriously claiming that accuracy equates to relevance and veracity? I don't think you HAVE a point.

 

[David Biedny]

Guys, there's a point where you throw up your hands and walk away from a conversation that's not being productive.

On another note, here's something funny... Bassett gets a wedgie!

dB

 

[UBERDOINK]

Ok, I'm tired of wasting time on this.

People are only ignorant when they refuse to accept truths.

The fact is, the bible is 1700 years old, give or take, various parts are either older or newer, but NONE of these documents are two thousand years old.

Ok, again, just a watching the History channel proves this wrong, the Dead Sea scrolls by themselves are undisputed in age and prove 2000 years of age for the text alone, even if you discount all the other facts.

We don't know who wrote them. We may have names, but there are no contemporaneous documents telling us who these gents were. So we don't really know who they may have been, or what their agendas may have been.

New testament documents for example are "letters" written to various churches, those letters were for the most part signed by the writers, as when Paul closes one of his books with the words "here is an example of my signature" again, you are just plain, provable wrong.


In spite of your assertions, we really don't have the originals, and there ARE differences, which we can't really tell what they may have been in all cases, nor how close or different they may be.

Again, SHOW me the differences, don't just keep claiming, even against proof to the contrary that you are right. SHOW the examples not the rhetoric.

The actual bible was canonized over a period of hundreds of years - the last book (Revelations, which Marzulli depends upon for his claims) was added as late as the twelfth or thirteenth century. (I forget which)

again, plain full out WRONG. Cannonization was simply collecting the written books of the bible into a single document, not the writing of it or whatever you are trying to imply here.

Lots of stuff, we know, was left out, because we have found come of it, buried to keep it from being destroyed! We know much of that was for doctrinal purposes, to prevent competing ideas from gaining traction.

What was left out? We know this? or was there documents, written much later than the original works, that weren't considered part of the original books. That's like saying, the book of Mormon was "left out" to suppress the knowledge it contained.

So their veracity is questionable.

This is my point as regards Marzulli. He takes this book, adds in some Jewish mythology and claims to know the truth!

His Jewish mythology is mostly called THE OLD TESTAMENT, although again, I'm not defending his presentation, only the idea that we shouldn't discount spiritual traditions in helping us under stand the UFO phenomena.

Poppycock.

I am finished with your arrogant arguments in this thread, you exhibit a partial knowledge gained from Wikipedia, but obviously have only a sketchy knowledge of real history, and thus, only are here to muddy the waters.

I'm not the arrogant one, I'm willing to study and learn what I believe instead of just skim some books and then claim all authority, and also be unable to admit when I'm simple wrong.

Noise, not signal.

You are less noise and more mindless, un-knowledgeable rhetoric based on your own un-studied belief system.

Good night.

Good night indeed!

 

[UBERDOINK]

What's your point here, Uberdoink? Are you seriously claiming that accuracy equates to relevance and veracity? I don't think you HAVE a point.

again, i'm "Claiming" that there may be insight to be gained from a very old written history that deals with all kinds of supernatural things.

To totally discount everything it says, and anyone that uses it as a theoretical foundation is intelectually dishonest.

oh and do I really have to get started on the archeological validity that has been proven over the course of the 20th century about the historical accuracy of the bibles accounts, and no, not creation, but again, why throw everything out because you don't believe in part of it?

 

[UBERDOINK]

Guys, there's a point where you throw up your hands and walk away from a conversation that's not being productive.

On another note, here's something funny... Bassett gets a wedgie!

dB

You are right David. and yes Bassett deserves a wedgie!

 

[tyder001]

Y'all still at it?

Anyway, one day Job says to God..Ya know God you slew my children and destroyed my houses and servants. You smited me with boils and I just want to know one thing. Why? A voice thunders from heaven: Well Job, there's just something about you that pisses me off!