Err...Wait...

[RomanSoldier]

Funny how we are debating all this time about a single ancient book written 1000 years before the Dark Ages by a group of unknown Bronze Age Jewish tribes over several hundred years and edited countless times by dozens of men for dubious and unknown reasons as if it somehow still mattered what they thought. Hmmff...

 

[Washington]

And how does this relate to creation or evolution?

 

[Gracchus]

And how does this relate to creation or evolution?

Apparently, you haven't been paying attention to some of those posting in this forum. e.g. AV1611VET, Juvenissun, RobertByers, dad, et al.

 

[AV1611VET]

Funny how we are debating all this time about a single ancient book written 1000 years before the Dark Ages by a group of unknown Bronze Age Jewish tribes over several hundred years and edited countless times by dozens of men for dubious and unknown reasons as if it somehow still mattered what they thought. Hmmff...

I think that "ancient book" contains prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled, and until they are, the Book will remain alive [quick] and well on Planet Earth. It also exposes an adversary that is committed to destroying the human race, and I get the picture that the Author of this Book is keeping it in vogue.

 

[juvenissun]

Funny how we are debating all this time about a single ancient book written 1000 years before the Dark Ages by a group of unknown Bronze Age Jewish tribes over several hundred years and edited countless times by dozens of men for dubious and unknown reasons as if it somehow still mattered what they thought. Hmmff...

Yeah. Think about this puzzle.
You are not the only smart guy who sees this anomaly.

 

[MoonLancer]

Funny how we are debating all this time about a single ancient book written 1000 years before the Dark Ages by a group of unknown Bronze Age Jewish tribes over several hundred years and edited countless times by dozens of men for dubious and unknown reasons as if it somehow still mattered what they thought. Hmmff...

well it is a book baptized in blood.

 

[NailsII]

Funny how we are debating all this time about a single ancient book written 1000 years before the Dark Ages by a group of unknown Bronze Age Jewish tribes over several hundred years and edited countless times by dozens of men for dubious and unknown reasons as if it somehow still mattered what they thought. Hmmff...

Absolutely.

I have always wondered at how the 'New' version of this book was so shamelessly edited and constructed to discredit parts that were written out an burned as heretical - the gospels of Thomas and Judas were banned and burned, yet lines still exist in the canonised bible to discredit their content.

 

[RomanSoldier]

And how does this relate to creation or evolution?

Uh, where do you think that creationists get their side of the story?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I think that "ancient book" contains prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled, and until they are, the Book will remain alive [quick] and well on Planet Earth.

Indeed -- some people never learn.

 

[Nathan Poe]

well it is a book baptized in blood.

I thought that was the Necronomicon?

 

[Washington]

Uh, where do you think that creationists get their side of the story?

So why do nothing more than state the obvious? In regard to the C/E issue your OP was pretty pointless. To me, what you posted was no more engaging than if someone observed that evolutionists are always citing science, an enterprise that continually updates itself; neither post prompting anything more than a, Yeah? So what?

"Debating all this time about a single ancient book written 1000 years before the Dark Ages by a group of unknown Bronze Age Jewish tribes over several hundred years and edited countless times by dozens of men for dubious and unknown reasons as if it somehow still mattered what they thought" is no less relevant to dozens and dozens of other religious issues, and therefore hardly particular to the C/E issue, which is what prompted my question. But go ahead and do what you can with it (not that you need my permission). Until something having to do specifically with the C/E debate emerges I'll simply watch from the sidelines. Best of luck.

 

[DaveISBG]

Funny how we are debating all this time about a single ancient book written 1000 years before the Dark Ages by a group of unknown Bronze Age Jewish tribes over several hundred years and edited countless times by dozens of men for dubious and unknown reasons as if it somehow still mattered what they thought. Hmmff...

The fact is that the Bible has not been edited countless times . Take the New Testament, for example. There are around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure.
So when we translate the Bible, we translate from the original language into our language. Therefore, the translations are very accurate and trustworthy in regards to what the Bible originally said.

Up until the 1940's the earliest complete Old Testament document dated to 980 AD. In 1947 the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in a cave in Israel. These documents dated to 100 BC. When compared to the newer text, the Dead Sea Scrolls were found to be 95% identical. The 5% variation consisted mainly of slips of the pen and variations in spelling. In no case did the variations change the meaning of even one verse. These conclusions led scholar William Green to state, "It may safely be said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted."

Prophesy is proof that the Bible is the inspired word of God. It was prophesied in Mat 24:35 The heaven and the earth shall pass away, but My Words shall not pass away. No coincidence that the Old Testament contained in the Bible, the worlds best selling book, has been around for over 3000 years.

 

[Hespera]

The fact is that the Bible has not been edited countless times . Take the New Testament, for example. There are around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure.
So when we translate the Bible, we translate from the original language into our language. Therefore, the translations are very accurate and trustworthy in regards to what the Bible originally said.

Up until the 1940's the earliest complete Old Testament document dated to 980 AD. In 1947 the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in a cave in Israel. These documents dated to 100 BC. When compared to the newer text, the Dead Sea Scrolls were found to be 95% identical. The 5% variation consisted mainly of slips of the pen and variations in spelling. In no case did the variations change the meaning of even one verse. These conclusions led scholar William Green to state, "It may safely be said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted."

Prophesy is proof that the Bible is the inspired word of God. It was prophesied in Mat 24:35 The heaven and the earth shall pass away, but My Words shall not pass away. No coincidence that the Old Testament contained in the Bible, the worlds best selling book, has been around for over 3000 years.

Well they stats are like a bikini dont they? Suggestive, but hide the important details. Your 99.5% is baseless. So is your accuracy of dead sea scroll translation, esp as all translation isnt even available.


good ol wiki....

Publication of the scrolls has taken many decades, and the delay has been a source of academic controversy. As of 2007 two volumes remain to be completed, with the whole series, Discoveries in the Judean Desert, running to thirty nine volumes in total. Many of the scrolls are now housed in the Shrine of the Book in Jerusalem. According to The Oxford Companion to Archeology, "The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100." [3]


Doesnt sound as if everything is exactly the same as always!

If you want to go with prophesy as proof, then may as well say Nostradamus was a real prophet. Of course, like in the bible, the prophesy is so vague that its easy to make events fit, if you are determined. Show me one that is clear cut and obvious.

The example you gave tho, is a strange one. If not one word, jot or tittle was ever to pass away, then why did so many of the OT words pass away in the NT?

 

[ashibaka]

Up until the 1940's the earliest complete Old Testament document dated to 980 AD. In 1947 the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in a cave in Israel. These documents dated to 100 BC. When compared to the newer text, the Dead Sea Scrolls were found to be 95% identical. The 5% variation consisted mainly of slips of the pen and variations in spelling. In no case did the variations change the meaning of even one verse. These conclusions led scholar William Green to state, "It may safely be said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted."

The Dead Sea Scrolls had a lot of stuff not in the current OT, though-- for example, the Book of Jubilees, which creationists would jump all over if some evangelical were to declare it canon.

 

[NailsII]

The fact is that the Bible has not been edited countless times . Take the New Testament, for example. There are around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure.

Nothing to do with recent copies, I think the comment is more about what happened from circa 30AD to the first Greek manuscript.
A lot of time elapsed for oral mistakes, embeleshments and genuine mistakes.
As Corinthians clearly shows, there was a massive attempt to sell the new religion to a mass audience, and Paul was not afraid to rip up the old rules to gain followers....

The Dead Sea Scrolls had a lot of stuff not in the current OT, though-- for example, the Book of Jubilees, which creationists would jump all over if some evangelical were to declare it canon.

I must confess I know very little about the 'recent' finds, if you have a link I would really appreciate it....

 

[RomanSoldier]

The fact is that the Bible has not been edited countless times . Take the New Testament, for example. There are around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals.

Quite wrong. Where in the world do you get this figure? The early copies of the NT are as rare as hens teeth.

These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure.

Of which of the many different versions of the NT do you speek?

So when we translate the Bible, we translate from the original language into our language. Therefore, the translations are very accurate and trustworthy in regards to what the Bible originally said.

Really? What was the original language spoken at the time? Aramaic. What was the original copy language? Greek. When do you think that English translations occurred? Do you know the status of "old english" at the time?

Up until the 1940's the earliest complete Old Testament document dated to 980 AD. In 1947 the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in a cave in Israel. These documents dated to 100 BC. When compared to the newer text, the Dead Sea Scrolls were found to be 95% identical. The 5% variation consisted mainly of slips of the pen and variations in spelling. In no case did the variations change the meaning of even one verse. These conclusions led scholar William Green to state, "It may safely be said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted."

The OT, not the NT.

Prophesy is proof that the Bible is the inspired word of God. It was prophesied in Mat 24:35 The heaven and the earth shall pass away, but My Words shall not pass away. No coincidence that the Old Testament contained in the Bible, the worlds best selling book, has been around for over 3000 years.

"Bible Prophecy" is not only inaccurate and vague, but "proves" absolutely nothing.

 

[Hespera]

So, Dave! Are you gonna accept that you got some of that stuff wrong, or just hide?

 

[sfs]

Quite wrong. Where in the world do you get this figure? The early copies of the NT are as rare as hens teeth.

Hens must have more teeth than I realized. While more manuscripts of the NT would certainly be nice, the textual evidence we do have is better than for any other work of the period. Poor transmission of the text is really not an issue for NT writings, nor was extensive editing likely. Mark had several different endings tacked on, and John probably had more than one stage of composition, but apart from that not much happened. There are suggestions of some editing done to some of Paul's letters (the genuine ones, that is), but that's pretty speculative.

Of which of the many different versions of the NT do you speek?

Which different versions do you mean?

Really? What was the original language spoken at the time? Aramaic.

Lots of different languages were spoken at the time. Exactly which time and which place are you talking about? The original language of the NT was Greek, written by and for Greek speakers, while the language of Jesus was Aramaic (although he may or may not have known some Greek). A few snippets of Aramaic have been preserved as sayings in the Greek.

What was the original copy language? Greek.

Yes, the texts were copied from Greek into Greek. What's your point? (They were also translated into Syriac and Latin; surviving versions of the old translations provide checks on the original Greek texts.)

When do you think that English translations occurred?

There were some partial Old English translations, but the first complete translation into English was the first Wycliffite version in the fourteenth century, which was more of a free-standing gloss on the Vulgate than a translation. The second version might be better considered the first English translation. Modern English translations, on the other hand, start with Tyndale's translation from the Greek and (for the OT) Hebrew.

Do you know the status of "old english" at the time?

Old English was dead, buried and forgotten by that time. Tyndale's translation was into Early Modern English.

I really don't see what you're aiming at here. There are plenty of questions about the historical accuracy of the Bible, including the historical accuracy of the NT, but the questions have little or nothing to do with the transmission and translation of the texts.

 

[Chalnoth]

The fact is that the Bible has not been edited countless times . Take the New Testament, for example. There are around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure.
So when we translate the Bible, we translate from the original language into our language. Therefore, the translations are very accurate and trustworthy in regards to what the Bible originally said.

I don't know what incorrect information you're looking at, but in the some 30,000 or so ancient greek manuscripts we have, there are more errors than there are words in the New Testament. In fact, examination of these ancient texts has demonstrated a significant number of errors that still exist in many of the commonly-used translations.

Up until the 1940's the earliest complete Old Testament document dated to 980 AD. In 1947 the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in a cave in Israel. These documents dated to 100 BC. When compared to the newer text, the Dead Sea Scrolls were found to be 95% identical. The 5% variation consisted mainly of slips of the pen and variations in spelling. In no case did the variations change the meaning of even one verse. These conclusions led scholar William Green to state, "It may safely be said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted."

You might want to look at the variation that exists there. There are a number of documented cases of deliberate alterations of the text to fit one theological view or another.

Prophesy is proof that the Bible is the inspired word of God. It was prophesied in Mat 24:35 The heaven and the earth shall pass away, but My Words shall not pass away. No coincidence that the Old Testament contained in the Bible, the worlds best selling book, has been around for over 3000 years.

There is no evidence that the Old Testament has been around for longer than about 2500 years, though it apparently includes some pieces of older works.

 

[sfs]

I don't know what incorrect information you're looking at, but in the some 30,000 or so ancient greek manuscripts we have, there are more errors than there are words in the New Testament.

I'd like to see that statistics involved here -- citation? There aren't anything like 30,000 NT manuscripts that are genuinely ancient, and few of the really old ones are anything like complete, so it would be nice to know what's being counted. If the statistics are accurate, however, they are still remarkably uninteresting. The vast majority of errors are simple and easily identifiable by comparison with other manuscripts.

For comparison, if we sequence a single genome 30,000 times there will be far more errors in our sequencing than there are bases in the genome, counting all of the errors in the individual sequence efforts. This does not mean we have will have a poor sequence of the genome, however. Instead, we will have in total an extremely accurate understanding of the real genome, with a very low error rate. That's not a bad analogy for the situation with the reconstruction of original Greek texts of the New Testament (or for any other widely copied ancient work, but no other ancient Greek work has been copied so many times).

In fact, examination of these ancient texts has demonstrated a significant number of errors that still exist in many of the commonly-used translations.

Really? Could you list three or four errors of any consequence that still persist in modern translations? I'm only aware of a handful of textual errors or uncertainties that have any theological or historical significance, and most of those were easily resolved early in the development of textual criticism. What exactly are you talking about here?

You might want to look at the variation that exists there. There are a number of documented cases of deliberate alterations of the text to fit one theological view or another.

Certainly there are a number of such cases. The number I can think of is around two, but perhaps you have a longer list in mind. Could you provide a pointer to the kinds of things you have in mind.

There is no evidence that the Old Testament has been around for longer than about 2500 years, though it apparently includes some pieces of older works.

A good part of the OT is clearly even younger than 2500 years.