Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

[amariselle]

Of course, much in the way a Tom Clancy novel might get certain facts right in a Jack Ryan novel.

Actually these sources are from people who have devoted their entire lives to studying the history and authenticity of the Biblical manuscripts, ancient Hebrew and Greek etc.

I've looked into it a bit myself, in college and more recently, but I freely admit I am no Biblical scholar. I am inspired now though, to look again. I will do so tomorrow and perhaps start a new thread on the topic.

 

[HitchSlap]

Actually these sources are from people who have devoted their entire lives to studying the history and authenticity of the Biblical manuscripts, ancient Hebrew and Greek etc.

I've looked into it a bit myself, in college and more recently, but I freely admit I am no Biblical scholar. I am inspired now though, to look again. I will do so tomorrow and perhaps start a new thread on the topic.

Are you aware of the fact there is zero contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus?

 

[amariselle]

Are you aware of the fact there is zero contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus?

What exactly do you mean by that? That no new Biblical texts are being written?

 

[HitchSlap]

What exactly do you mean by that? That no new Biblical texts are being written?

No, contemporary source means any form of evidence during the actual lifetime of Jesus. And the earliest documents we have were written decades after his death. And the actual physical copies of of these sources were copied decades after this.

 

[rjs330]

They have in the Bible.Because Rome took over and kept it alive.Yes I can.Millions of people have never heard the name Jesus or Christianity.You obviously believe everything you are told, all we have are copies of copies of copies, no originals at all.
John 8:7 ‘Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.’ was added to the Bible about 300AD as were a lot of other verses all over the Bible.

A few more forgeries in the Bible..........

Mark 9:29: Jesus comments that a certain type of indwelling demon can only be exorcised through "prayer and fasting" (KJV) This is also found in the Rheims New Testament. But the word "fasting" did not appear in the oldest manuscripts. 5 Many new English translations have dropped the word.

Mark 16:9-20: The original version of Mark ended rather abruptly at the end of Verse 8. Verses 9 to 20, which are shown in most translations of the Bible, were added later by an unknown forger*. The verses were based on portions of Luke, John and other sources.

Luke 3:22: This passage describes Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist. According to Justin Martyr, the original version of this verse has God speaking the words: "You are my son, today have I begotten thee." Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, and other ancient Christian authorities also quoted it this way. 1 The implication is that Jesus was first recognized by God as his son at the time of baptism. But a forger* altered the words to read: "You are my son, whom I love." The altered passage conformed more to the evolving Christian belief that Jesus was the son of God at his birth, (as described in Luke and Matthew) or before the beginning of creation (as in John), and not at his baptism.

John 5:3-4: These verses describe how "a great multitude" of disabled people stayed by the water. From time to time an angel arrived, and stirred the waters. The first person who stepped in was cured. This passage seems strange. The process would not be at all just, because the blind could not see the waters being stirred, and the less mobile of the disabled would have no chance of a cure. Part of Verse 3 and all of Verse 4 are missing from the oldest manuscripts of John. 3 It appears to be a piece of free-floating magical text that someone added to John.

John 21: There is general agreement among liberal and mainline Biblical scholars that the original version of the Gospel of John ended at the end of John 20. John 21 appears to either be an afterthought of the author(s) of John, or a later addition by a forger*. Most scholars believe that the latter occurred. 4

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: This is a curious passage. It appears to prohibit all talking by women during services. But it contradicts verse 11:5, in which St. Paul states that women can actively pray and prophesy during services. It is obvious to some theologians that verses 14:33b to 36 are a later addition, added by an unknown counterfeiter* with little talent at forgery.*

Bible scholar, Hans Conzelmann, comments on these three and a half verses: "Moreover, there are peculiarities of linguistic usage, and of thought. [within them]." 2 If they are removed, then Verse 33a merges well with Verse 37 in a seamless transition.

Since they were a later forgery*, they do not fulfill the basic requirement to be considered inerrant: they were not in the original manuscript written by Paul. This is a very important passage, because much many denominations opposition to female ordination is based on these verses.

Revelation 1:11: The phrase "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and," which is found in the King James Version was not in the original Greek texts. It is also found in the New King James Version (NKJV) and in the 21st Century King James Version (KJ21) The latter are basically re-writes of the original KJV. Modern English, is used, but the translators seem to have made little or no effort to correct errors. The Alpha/Omega phrase

"... is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation or in Bruce Metzger's definitive 'A Textual Commentary' on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994..." 7

The very fact that we have enough manuscripts to verify the scriptures you quote is evidence of the veracity of the bible. Just because the KJV is off on a few verses does not invalidate the original texts. We have some pretty accurate translations now including interliniary Greek English bibles. So your slam is against a certain English translation not against the original text.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[amariselle]

No, contemporary source means any form of evidence during the actual lifetime of Jesus. And the earliest documents we have were written decades after his death. And the actual physical copies of of these sources were copied decades after this.

Yes, but the original texts were written by His contemporaries. And amazingly there is very little variation that has occurred over the centuries, and none of the variations deal with crucial texts. (Like those concerning the Deity of Jesus and His resurrection for instance].

 

[HitchSlap]

The very fact that we have enough manuscripts to verify the scriptures you quote is evidence of the veracity of the bible. Just because the KJV is off on a few verses does not invalidate the original texts. We have some pretty accurate translations now including interliniary Greek English bibles. So your slam is against a certain English translation not against the original text.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I disagree, there's actually very little to "verify" scriptures. Perhaps you're referring to the amount of copies of copies that exist? We don't have the originals, any of them.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes, but the original texts were written by His contemporaries. And amazingly there is very little variation that has occurred over the centuries, and none of the variations deal with crucial texts. (Like those concerning the Deity of Jesus and His resurrection for instance].

Not true. The gospels were written in Greek, a language Jesus never spoke, in countries Jesus never visited, decades after his death. The authors are anonymous, and certainly never met/knew Jesus. Matthew and Luke copy heavily from Mark, and John is written in a style so different, that it almost wasn't included in the bible. The gospels are replete with factual errors, incongruent timelines and interpolations. And the deity of Jesus was debated for the next century after his death.

 

[rjs330]

I don't think you are reading carefully the posts you have been receiving, explaining evolution to you. Evolution is definitely claiming that one species can evolve into another. However, it is not claiming there are wild jumps, where one day, it's a dog and the next day turns into a human. The latter is precisely what those here who do not properly understand evolution are proposing. Some of us have been working hard to correct that.

None of us claim wild jumps. We just claim it's impossible for one thing to turn into something else no matter how long evolution had to work. There is no proof that it can happen.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[HitchSlap]

None of us claim wild jumps. We just claim it's impossible for one thing to turn into something else no matter how long evolution had to work. There is no proof that it can happen.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Your claim is wrong.

 

[amariselle]

Not true. The gospels were written in Greek, a language Jesus never spoke, in countries Jesus never visited, decades after his death. The authors are anonymous, and certainly never met/knew Jesus. Matthew and Luke copy heavily from Mark, and John is written in a style so different, that it almost wasn't included in the bible. The gospels are replete with factual errors, incongruent timelines and interpolations. And the deity of Jesus was debated for the next century after his death.

I don't know what sources you are looking at, but the the study of Biblical texts is a massive field, and they have cohesively demonstrated quite the opposite. However, I will start another thread on this tomorrow. I don't have time to look into it again right now.

 

[HitchSlap]

I don't know what sources you are looking at, but the the study of Biblical texts is a massive field, and they have cohesively demonstrated quite the opposite. However, I will start another thread on this tomorrow. I don't have time to look into it again right now.

What language were the gospels written in?

 

[rjs330]

Your claim is wrong.

Actually your claim is wrong and you have no proof its right.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[amariselle]

What language were the gospels written in?

You do understand the huge Hellenistic influence of that time period right? There were many in the area that spoke and wrote Greek. That disproves absolutely nothing.

 

[HitchSlap]

Actually your claim is wrong and you have no proof its right.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I'm really not interested in your opinion.
I'm swayed by evidence, not incredulity. You have none of the former, and too much of the latter.

 

[rjs330]

Not true. The gospels were written in Greek, a language Jesus never spoke, in countries Jesus never visited, decades after his death. The authors are anonymous, and certainly never met/knew Jesus. Matthew and Luke copy heavily from Mark, and John is written in a style so different, that it almost wasn't included in the bible. The gospels are replete with factual errors, incongruent timelines and interpolations. And the deity of Jesus was debated for the next century after his death.

I get it. You don't think the bible is true. You don't really doubt the manuscripts themselves you doubt the truth within those manuscripts and accuracy of actual history of them. You may believe that they were written, but you think its a fable.

You are entitled to that. And I do not have the ability to convince you otherwise. That is between you and God. All I can tell you is what I believe and why I believe it. What happens after that is out of my hands.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[HitchSlap]

You do understand the huge Hellenistic influence of that time period right? There were many in the area that spoke and wrote Greek. That disproves absolutely nothing.

It's estimated that literacy was probably about 10% for a Jew in Palestine during this time period, and they most assuredly would not have spoke Greek, much less write in Greek.
Additionally, the style of Greek used in the gospels is a style used much later after Jesus' death. The gospels are written in third person narrative, and the authors are anonymous.

 

[HitchSlap]

I get it. You don't think the bible is true. You don't really doubt the manuscripts themselves you doubt the truth within those manuscripts and accuracy of actual history of them. You may believe that they were written, but you think its a fable.

You are entitled to that. And I do not have the ability to convince you otherwise. That is between you and God. All I can tell you is what I believe and why I believe it. What happens after that is out of my hands.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I'm influenced by evidence. There is no other reasonable way to determine reality.

I'm really not interested in one's personal beliefs, but only what you can support with objective evidence.

 

[amariselle]

It's estimated that literacy was probably about 10% for a Jew in Palestine during this time period, and they most assuredly would not have spoke Greek, much less write in Greek.
Additionally, the style of Greek used in the gospels is a style used much later after Jesus' death. The gospels are written in third person narrative, and the authors are anonymous.

Many people dictated what they wanted written to those who could read. Paul also did this. Also, as we don't have the original documents, and as they were copied over time, the style of Greek may have changed, but the message remained the same. Similarly to how the KJV is different English than more recent translations, but the message remains intact and accurate.

 

[HitchSlap]

Many people dictated what they wanted written to those who could read. Paul also did this. Also, as we don't have the original documents, and as they were copied over time, the style of Greek may have changed, but the message remained the same. Similarly to how the KJV is different English than more recent translations, but the message remains intact and accurate.

There's no way to know if the copies accurately conveys the originals, since, as you ponted out, we don't have them. In fact, quite the opposite is true. We have plenty of examples in which we have one copy delbrately changed to the next copy. This was such a common practice, in fact, that the writer of Revelation admonishes anyone who would change the "prophecy."