Originally posted by robbie carrobiewhat parts of scripture you deem to be in your own words 'fictional'...
many years? the few accounts we have of Alexander the great were written five hundred years after his death, even the letters of Paul are dated to within sixty years of Christ death and yet we never hear you complain that the accounts of Alexanders life are fictional. What you were actually asked is what parts of scripture you deem to be in your own words 'fictional', and how you arrived at that evaluation.
Most of it.
how you arrived at that evaluation.
Lack of corroboration.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by C HessThe evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which noone dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians. Somehow or other, there are people who regard a 'sacred book' as ipso facto under suspicion, and demand much more corroborative evidence for such a work than they would for an ordinary secular or pagan writing From the viewpoint of the historian, the same standards must be applied to both. But we do not quarrel with those who want more evidence for the New Testament than for other writings; firstly, because the universal claims which the New Testament makes upon mankind are so absolute, and the character and works of its chief Figure so unparalleled, that we want to be as sure of its truth as we possibly can; and secondly, because in point of fact there is much more evidence for the New Testament than for other ancient writings of comparable date.
...is a source consisting of numerous incomplete, badly translated, now largely missing sources?
Ancient Bibles: http://youtu.be/tmVY1Az5ij4
I found this most enlightening. I always doubted that the bible was a reliable source, mainly because it was compiled by a group of men with their own agenda (choosing what goes in and what is left out) long after the events took place, but apparently the problem is even bigger than that. Or what say ye?
There are in existence about 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part. The best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350, the two most important being the Codex Vaticanus, the chief treasure of the Vatican Library in Rome, and the wellknown Codex Sinaiticus, which the British Government purchased from the Soviet Government for £100,000 on Christmas Day, 1933, and which is now the chief treasure of the British Museum. Two other important early MSS in this country are the Codex Alexandrinus, also in the British Museum, written in the fifth century, and the Codex Bezae:, in Cambridge University Library, written in the fifth or sixth century, and containing the Gospels and Acts in both Greek and Latin.
Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar's Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 BC) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar's day. Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59 BC-AD 17) only thirty five survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books iii-vi, is as old as the fourth century. Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of has two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. The extant MSS of his minor works (Dialogue dc Oratoribus, Agricola, Gcrmania) all descend from a codex of the tenth century The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to c. AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.
http://www.bible.ca/b-new-testament-documents-f-f-bruce-ch2.htm
Originally posted by checkbaiterAll sounds very nice, but can you substantiate it?
The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which noone dreams of questioning.
List a few classical authors that noone dreams of questioning.
Lets do some actual comparison of evidence and see if your claim stands up to scrutiny, or if you just made it up on the spur of the moment.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
16 Aug 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadgoogle on
Given that the Bible is published in Greek amongst other languages, I think you will find the number is in the millions. You really should think when you post.
Hawaiian pidgin Bible
for an really interesting translation. It's a genuine, sincere work by Wycliffe Bible Translators.
16 Aug 14
Originally posted by HandyAndywhat a pathetic answer, most of it is not an answer at all, which parts, there are sixty six books to choose from you might have at least hit one amnd corroboration. Why don't you doubt the life of Alexander, why are you not whining about corroboration in his case because as I have stated there is more extant manuscripts for the Bible than any other ancient work of literature, literally thousands of papyri codices and manuscripts, in fact the dead sea scrolls determined that the book of Isaiah had been accurately copied and had remained virtually unchanged for a thousand years so you are talking pants Randolf, one hundred percent unadulterated hyper pants. In the case of the Christian Greek scriptures there are the sahidic coptic texts, copies of earlier Greek manuscripts dated to the third century which contain entire books and not an iota of a difference, so just what lack of corroboration and you slobbering about?
[b]what parts of scripture you deem to be in your own words 'fictional'...
Most of it.
how you arrived at that evaluation.
Lack of corroboration.[/b]
16 Aug 14
Originally posted by checkbaiterIndeed so what are we to attribute these ludicrous claims? same old prejudices and hearsay masquerading as fact.
The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which noone dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have o ...[text shortened]... ears later than the originals.
http://www.bible.ca/b-new-testament-documents-f-f-bruce-ch2.htm
16 Aug 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieGive Batman another 2,000 years and laws from governments
really. Jesus is a fictional character? Can you cite any other fictional character that has influenced mankind to the extent of the Christ? Spider man? Bat man? Speedy Gonzalez?
and you could easily create a Batman cult/philosophy. Look at
what Scientology has achieved in less than a century.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe Bible was written before there were books. Bible passages were conceived and passed along orally
what a pathetic answer, most of it is not an answer at all, which parts, there are sixty six books to choose from you might have at least hit one amnd corroboration. Why don't you doubt the life of Alexander, why are you not whining about corroboration in his case because as I have stated there is more extant manuscripts for the Bible than any other ...[text shortened]... ks and not an iota of a difference, so just what lack of corroboration and you slobbering about?
at first, then written down by scribes, copied, edited, copied again, adapted, shaped, translated, copied
again, molded, adjusted, translated again, edited... Some of the contents could be literal fact, but there's
no way of telling. Scholars find little or no supporting evidence aside from the Bible itself.
Is it possible for you to communicate without resorting to insults and name calling?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat's your take on the Book of Revelation? Fact or fiction?
what a pathetic answer, most of it is not an answer at all, which parts, there are sixty six books to choose from you might have at least hit one amnd corroboration. Why don't you doubt the life of Alexander, why are you not whining about corroboration in his case because as I have stated there is more extant manuscripts for the Bible than any other ...[text shortened]... ks and not an iota of a difference, so just what lack of corroboration and you slobbering about?
Originally posted by HandyAndyNo its not possible so shad up and listen, nah only kidding, of course its possible, i get a little bleeding coming in from the clans forum
The Bible was written before there were books. Bible passages were conceived and passed along orally
at first, then written down by scribes, copied, edited, copied again, adapted, shaped, translated, copied
again, molded, adjusted, translated again, edited... Some of the contents could be literal fact, but there's
no way of telling. Scholars find lit ...[text shortened]... itself.
Is it possible for you to communicate without resorting to insults and name calling?
the massorettes were responsible for copying the Bible, they number not every word but every single letter and totaled it up page by page, now on what basis are you claiming that it has changed significantly because as i have already pointed out the dead sea scrolls of Isiah prove that it had changed little over a period of a thousand years, in fact the only difference they found was a reference to an unknown musical instrument.
scholars find little or no supporting evidence for what Andy?😵
17 Aug 14
Originally posted by HandyAndyfact or fiction in what sense Andy? that John penned and wrote it on the island of Patmos around 90CE, fact, that it contains symbolic language is also a fact. As far as I can tell it contains NO fiction but then again I have only studied it three times, verse by verse.
What's your take on the Book of Revelation? Fact or fiction?
17 Aug 14
Originally posted by FMFso what, you have still not produced a shred of evidence to the contrary.
Details about how the Bible was published and how it proliferated are not evidence of its veracity or reliability regarding the claims made about Jesus by his followers in the decades and centuries after His death.