GOD EXISTS

So, since the copies we have from the 200s are real close to what we have today, you're positing editing between composition (between, say AD 44-96) and the 200s? With no actual examples of manuscripts before the edits? Does it really make sense that far more changes would happen in 150 years than in 1800 years?

Do recall though that there´s a difference between written, and not edited ever since.

Many/most of those you mention probably does not exist in original form, but only in the edited versions from later.

bhasseler wrote:So, since the copies we have from the 200s are real close to what we have today, you're positing editing between composition (between, say AD 44-96) and the 200s? With no actual examples of manuscripts before the edits? Does it really make sense that far more changes would happen in 150 years than in 1800 years?

Do recall though that there´s a difference between written, and not edited ever since.

Many/most of those you mention probably does not exist in original form, but only in the edited versions from later.

There is considerable evidence that the gospels of Mark, Mathew and Luke are all based on an earlier work typically called Q (for Quelle - a German for source). We have never found a copy of Q. Given the differences in the three gospels, we can be sure that there was a bunch of changes being made.
One of the biggest arguments that significant changes were being made tot he early church documents comes from one of the last (if not the last) to be written - Revelation. There is a dire threat in there warning anyone against making any changes to the document - one that would not have to be made unless the author didn't want the same thing happening to his work.

fallsfromtrees wrote:

DDHvi wrote:snip

In the case of the New Testament, translations done in early days are witness to the fundamental accuracy of it. So are the quotations from it by the early church fathers. It has been said it could almost completely be reconstructed by combining those quotations. You would need to ignore spelling and other minor variations, of course.
And you still need honest translators

What early translations of the New Testament. There has never been anything found earlier that the 4th or 5th century CE, and those of copies of copies we don't know how many times. And from internal evidence, most of the New Testament wasn't written until the start of the 2nd century CE (100 AD)

There is a parchment fragment of Matthew found in Egypt that has been dated at 70AD. More important, compare with what we have in copies of other ancient works. With Homer's works, the estimate is the earliest copies are about 5 centuries later, but people don't state we miss anything important. Julius Caesar's earliest copies about the wars in Gaul are estimated at a millenium later, and there are less than a dozen known, yet people don't disparage them.

There have not been found early COPIES of the translations. This means we have a maximum date, not a known one.

Many New Testament writers claimed to be witnesses. If this is not true, then the whole thing is a lie. However, why should we accept someone's theories about dating instead of the writer's statement, when the daters refuse to use the SAME methods they use for other works from antiquity?


http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawk ... t-n1947213

Only by trying to live up to tough standards set by a Higher Power can we really achieve our greatest potential as human beings and become everything we ought to be.

A hypocrite does not confess his sin, so the article title is not correct. Some good points are made.

Tenshinai wrote:

It is interesting to compare the number of examples given even just a century ago where men stated the Bible had its facts wrong, with the number given today. Almost all of the old ones did not survive solid research.

And that is a complete garbage and rubbish claim.
The bible has a vague basis in reality for sure, but there are freaky huge disconnects once you start looking at it.

Please list at least a few of those huge disconnects you know.

Note there is a big difference between having a disconnect from a theory, however accepted it is, and facts.

DDHvi wrote:

DDHvi wrote:snip

In the case of the New Testament, translations done in early days are witness to the fundamental accuracy of it. So are the quotations from it by the early church fathers. It has been said it could almost completely be reconstructed by combining those quotations. You would need to ignore spelling and other minor variations, of course.
And you still need honest translators

What early translations of the New Testament. There has never been anything found earlier that the 4th or 5th century CE, and those of copies of copies we don't know how many times. And from internal evidence, most of the New Testament wasn't written until the start of the 2nd century CE (100 AD)

fallsfromtrees wrote:
There is a parchment fragment of Matthew found in Egypt that has been dated at 70AD. More important, compare with what we have in copies of other ancient works. With Homer's works, the estimate is the earliest copies are about 5 centuries later, but people don't state we miss anything important. Julius Caesar's earliest copies about the wars in Gaul are estimated at a millenium later, and there are less than a dozen known, yet people don't disparage them.

There have not been found early COPIES of the translations. This means we have a maximum date, not a known one.

Many New Testament writers claimed to be witnesses. If this is not true, then the whole thing is a lie. However, why should we accept someone's theories about dating instead of the writer's statement, when the daters refuse to use the SAME methods they use for other works from antiquity?


http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawk ... t-n1947213

Only by trying to live up to tough standards set by a Higher Power can we really achieve our greatest potential as human beings and become everything we ought to be.

A hypocrite does not confess his sin, so the article title is not correct. Some good points are made.

No one is claiming that Homer's work nor Caesar's was divinely inspired - and using the work to justify their own position (Well Big Julie might have - the caesars attempted to assume godhood themselves). Undoubtedly there has in fact stuff been lost from all of these works. Irrelevant. What is relevant is that the New Testament is claimed to be divinely inspired and used to justify such crimes against humanity as slavery, and the subjugation of women. There are minor fragments of some of the documents, but only fragments. For the vast majority of the New Testament there are only copies of copies of copies. And let's not even talk about the lack of sources for the Old Testament - the best evidence we have is that none of it was actually written down until the reign of Solomon.

To answer the first question ... NO, God does not enter into or relate in my life. I am a Rational Agnostic. I do not know one way or the other. I need scientific evidence since for me it must be more than a matter of faith. It must but of fact. Just me. No disrespect intended or implied. HB of CJ (old coot) Cm.

DDHvi wrote: With Homer's works, the estimate is the earliest copies are about 5 centuries later, but people don't state we miss anything important.

Because there isn't any need to. Nobody is running around claiming the Illiad is an historically accurate account of events. I have yet to encounter anyone arguing that the writings of Homer are historical evidence of the existence of Charybdis the sea monster for example.

If people want the bible given the same critical leeway then they only get to take it as seriously as well. As fictional mythology loosely based on real events but with a whole lot of clearly ridiculous supernatural events thrown in to make things more interesting.

Julius Caesar's earliest copies about the wars in Gaul are estimated at a millenium later, and there are less than a dozen known, yet people don't disparage them.

Extraordinary claims.... extraordinary evidence...


Do any of those writings contain the claim that Caesar perhaps flew his army to Gaul to in magic flying war chariots to smite the Gaul's with lightnings? Or just the rather mundane claim that a well known powerful empire conducted military operations in an area of the world they are known from many many many other sources to have conducted military operations in?


If the former was the case, you could expect disparagement.


For the latter? What would be the point?

gcomeau wrote:

fallsfromtrees wrote: With Homer's works, the estimate is the earliest copies are about 5 centuries later, but people don't state we miss anything important.

Because there isn't any need to. Nobody is running around claiming the Illiad is an historically accurate account of events. I have yet to encounter anyone arguing that the writings of Homer are historical evidence of the existence of Charybdis the sea monster for example.

If people want the bible given the same critical leeway then they only get to take it as seriously as well. As fictional mythology loosely based on real events but with a whole lot of clearly ridiculous supernatural events thrown in to make things more interesting.

Julius Caesar's earliest copies about the wars in Gaul are estimated at a millenium later, and there are less than a dozen known, yet people don't disparage them.

Extraordinary claims.... extraordinary evidence...


Do any of those writings contain the claim that Caesar perhaps flew his army to Gaul to in magic flying war chariots to smite the Gaul's with lightnings? Or just the rather mundane claim that a well known powerful empire conducted military operations in an area of the world they are known from many many many other sources to have conducted military operations in?


If the former was the case, you could expect disparagement.


For the latter? What would be the point?

Please be careful when adjusting quotes. Those were not my postings. Thank you.

What is relevant is that the New Testament is claimed to be divinely inspired and used to justify such crimes against humanity as slavery, and the subjugation of women.

The misuse of God or in this case misinterpretation of his word, to justify an individual's personal biases, desires etc is a very human failing. They do it with every other foundational document, the constitution for example. Therefore I would be a lot more surprised if people did NOT do this.

fallsfromtrees wrote:No one is claiming that Homer's work nor Caesar's was divinely inspired - and using the work to justify their own position (Well Big Julie might have - the caesars attempted to assume godhood themselves). Undoubtedly there has in fact stuff been lost from all of these works. Irrelevant. What is relevant is that the New Testament is claimed to be divinely inspired and used to justify such crimes against humanity as slavery, and the subjugation of women. There are minor fragments of some of the documents, but only fragments. For the vast majority of the New Testament there are only copies of copies of copies. And let's not even talk about the lack of sources for the Old Testament - the best evidence we have is that none of it was actually written down until the reign of Solomon.

Historically, the first known national elimination of slavery was from the work of William Wilberforce's group in Great Britain. If you think the scriptures led to oppression of women, take a close look at how they were treated by the Romans, etc. of that day. Or the Islamists of today.

The question is not about whether some have distorted the meanings, but about whether the evidence for authenticity is stronger than for other ancient documents. As for evidence against divine inspiration, many have claimed it exists. However, no one have been able to show me a specific example of that. Places where it disagrees with some current theories, yes, but not where they can show it disagrees with facts. Often, they misquote the text so badly one wonders if they have even read it.

Our pastor, last Sunday, told us how he was caught in addiction (meth, and others), but had a praying mother. In prison, after he trusted Jesus, he told others he would never take dope again. They laughed, as they had heard that from too many others.