• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Is God really and fully omnipotent?

I am jumping in this thread not attempting to argue the current dough stuff. I just noticed that in the earlier parts of the thread the biggest question is, "Why, if God is all powerful, couldn't He have just saved us from sin without Christ dying on the cross for us?" Good question.

Here are my thoughts. God is all powerful. Just because God did not do something does not mean that He couldn't. But, God is also defined by certain principals. God is love. God is also just. What Christ did for us was the ultimate display of love. Also, it seems that it would not be just to not have any consequence for sin. These two aspects of God help me to understand why Christ came. Not why Christ HAD to come, but why he DID come. I guess what I am saying is that God definetly could have just spoken a word and our sins would have been atoned for, but that would not have been a full display of His love and not a display of justice.  If God did not abide in ultimate love and practice justice, He would not be who He is.

I am not trying to make this a case to prove God's existence or to disprove skeptics. I am only trying to show reason behind my faith.
 
Upvote 0

Jedi

Knight
Sep 19, 2002
3,995
149
41
United States
Visit site
✟5,275.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Scripture does not=truth. There are hundreds, even thousands of ancient religious texts, and many of them disagree.

Simply because they disagree does not mean they are all of a sudden automatically equally false.

Who's to say which one is right?

That’s where apologetics comes from and this would require a slew of separate topics all for itself.

All that we have are the testimonies based whithin[sic] the texts themselves, and that is no basis for belif[sic] in anything.

That’s not entirely accurate. There are extra-Biblical sources to use as references. Then there are countless other ways to demonstrate the divine nature of the Bible, ranging from fulfilled prophecies to inerrancy, but each of these would require an in depth discussion all of their own, and that’s not what this topic was meant for.

That's like beliveing[sic] a product is good because its commercial says so.

Only if you haven’t looked at the ingredients or components of the product to decide for yourself whether or not it is good.

Th[sic] Bible was written thousands of years ago, and has been translated so many times, and tampered with, that it is impossible to tell which words are the originals and which were added later foe political reasons.

Hardly. There are thousands of manuscripts of the Bible and by comparison and correlation, it’s fairly easy to know what the originals contained. I suggest reading up on this subject with books written by people like F.F. Bruce, Dr. Norman Geisler, etc. It’s an interesting study, but nothing to support any sort of threatening objection.

As for humanity's resemblence[sic] to God, all of the things that you listed that God has, Humanity can do as well, and considering that we have yet to see God demonstrate the infinite capacity for ANY of these things, we do not know if he actually has them.

Correction: YOU do not know if he actually has them. Given my study of scripture and apologetics, I’m intellectually convinced of scripture’s veracity, which means what scripture says goes.

Most imprtantly[sic] of all though, EVERYTHING has a beginning.

Really? Where do numbers begin? I’m very curious. Furthermore, you are asserting things everyone knows you don't know. In order to say that "everything" has a beginning, you would have to know "everything." Well, do you know everything?

God's history of existence might stretch so far back that the first primitive humans could call him nothing but infinite, that doesn't mean he is. That was just a primitive estimation.

To say this is nothing more than a baseless assertion. It is an argument of ignorance.

Besides, the Christian history of God is only one of many like I said before, other people who predate Christianity describe exactly how and when their Gods came into being.

Christianity stems from Judaism, which is quite old. Some evidence of other religions, so I’ve heard, has been found that predates the evidence we have for Judaism, although we must realize that the further you go back in history, the less evidence of a given culture or belief you’re going to find. No evidence for a particular thing does not mean that particular thing did not exist, especially considering most things don’t survive thousands of years to be dug up later.
 
Upvote 0

jodrey

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2003
430
0
41
Quincy, Massachusetts
✟567.00
Hardly. There are thousands of manuscripts of the Bible and by comparison and correlation, it’s fairly easy to know what the originals contained. I suggest reading up on this subject with books written by people like F.F. Bruce, Dr. Norman Geisler, etc. It’s an interesting study, but nothing to support any sort of threatening objection.

But we don't have any of the originals. How can you say that all the originals are contained when you have no originals to compare them to? I don't know much about this field, but it is quite interesting. I've been thinking of studying it a bit. From what I hear, many (as in thousands of) ORIGINAL manuscripts have been found within the last century, and due to the enormous volume of scrolls and books, relatively little has been deciphered and published. Do you know much about these discoveries? We may be able to figure out much more of what the people of the times of the Bible actually believed and get clarification from other sources. That's pretty exciting. Sorry, off subject... :sorry:
 
Upvote 0

Jedi

Knight
Sep 19, 2002
3,995
149
41
United States
Visit site
✟5,275.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
But we don't have any of the originals. How can you say that all the originals are contained when you have no originals to compare them to?

Suppose you read a hand-written letter that contains the phrase “I l*ve you,” and then you find a copy of that same letter that says “I love y*u” (the *’s stand for letters that are written or copied so poorly that they’re illegible). What do you suppose the original message was? Yep, you got it: “I love you.” In the case of scripture, this is far more elaborate. Instead of merely two copies to compare and contrast to try to get the original message, there are thousands of copies, and the more copies, the better. No other book of antiquity is as well attested to as the Bible.

From what I hear, many (as in thousands of) ORIGINAL manuscripts have been found within the last century, and due to the enormous volume of scrolls and books, relatively little has been deciphered and published. Do you know much about these discoveries? We may be able to figure out much more of what the people of the times of the Bible actually believed and get clarification from other sources. That's pretty exciting. Sorry, off subject...

I have an entire report on this subject, naming specific papyrus pieces of scripture, their dates (some New Testament manuscripts dating easily within the first century C.E.), and all sorts of stuff.
 
Upvote 0

Outspoken

Standing in the Gap
Nov 8, 2002
6,441
16
48
✟29,688.00
Faith
Christian
"this is the answer many Christians give when they can't think of any other"

So? that doesn't make it the wrong answer. Please get off your high horse. Common answers are not always right, but its not smart to count them out just because they are common.

"It's simply my belief that God made Himself understandable to us."

Then you've made the first mistake of theology. This is also why his name is I am..its not finished because to finish it would be to limit the unlimited. Sorry to tell you that your brain isn't big enought to understand God my friend. You will seem glimpses of parts of him, and we can most assuridly talk about those, but to atempt to explain what is unexplainable is sheer ignorance and silliness.
 
Upvote 0
I though his full name was I am that I am. Meaning that he is the being who just... is (is is being used as a verb here). You know, because back when the Bible was written, many people were named after their trade, and since God's trade was being there, that's what his name was.
I never heard what you are talking about Jedi. Every book or archaeological magazine that I have read that had something to do with the major events in the Bible, keep saying the same thing, that the Bible's history is still extremely hazy and every discovery we make regarding it, just confuses the text further. Not a single event in the Bible has been accurately proven to have happened, and those that evidence say DID happen, happened very differently than the Bible's accounts say they did.

As for religions that predate Judaism. Here's one: Zorasterism, the earliest monotheistic religion discovered to date, and records of it showed that it was popular throughout the fertile crescent where civilization arose thousands of years before Judaism. Not only that but many Zorasteristic scriptures have survived, many in better condtion than later scrolls.

Besides, translating scrolls and pachment isn't as simple as you make it sound Jedi. There are not just thousands lying around waiting for us to compare. A situation more fitting to the actual situation than I l*ove you to I llove y*u would be I **** **u to * ***e **u. You cannot just translate a few letters and fill in the blanks, a mistake of only a single letter could change the meaning of the text completely.
I don't want to be looked at as a heretic or something, I am a Christian. But htis IS a debate forum, somebody has to bring up counterpoints. This isn't a general agreement forum. And these are valid points.
 
Upvote 0
Numbers DO have a beginning by the way. WE invented numbers. Without someone to name them then there is no "five". There can be five things sitting there, but without language and the need to quantify them, then there are no numbers. Same thing with 180 degrees in triangles, if we had a different measurement for degrees, then triangles might have 31 degrees in them, or four thousand. Numbers were INVENTED, they didn't form. Two trees standing side by side have no number if there is no sentient species to call them so. A tiger in the wild would see two trees and just call them "shelter" or a good place to sleep for the night.
Does that answer your question? Numbers are made up, if you want to know where they started, ask whichever person decided to start counting millions of years ago.
 
Upvote 0
We also invented the laws of physics. The laws of physics are just Human descriptions of how the world works. A ball will fall at X rate wheter we measure it or not. The laws of physics just make it easier for Humans to predict what will happen next. Without our "laws" things would still behave the way they do, it is just how things work.
 
Upvote 0

jodrey

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2003
430
0
41
Quincy, Massachusetts
✟567.00
Well, I don't quite agree with your last two posts, Tyr. Numbers have always existed; your argument is that they were not always comminicable. The word "five" is simply a dereferencer that stands for some "thing." The "thing" in this context is a concept, dereferenced by the word, "numbers." All words are dereferences: pointers to some thing, action, description, whatever. If we don't have a word for a specific type Martian cow, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means that we don't have a word for it.

Laws of physics exist. They're there, and there are many we don't know much about, if anything at all. They don't exist because we acknowledge them, they exist because "they are that they are." :) I think this is generally what you were saying anyway.
 
Upvote 0

jodrey

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2003
430
0
41
Quincy, Massachusetts
✟567.00
So? that doesn't make it the wrong answer. Please get off your high horse. Common answers are not always right, but its not smart to count them out just because they are common.

You're missing the point, outspoken. It's not a reliable answer, whether it's true or not. It could very well be true, but the only evidence to support it is that we can't find any evidence of any other answer. Just as I have no rightful claim to say, "No, I think there is another answer," neither do you have the necessary evidence to say the opposite. It's kind of pointless, and if you turn to it then you must realize that it will be much harder to find the real answer if one exists (for no one will be looking). It's an answer applied to too, too many questions. I would much rather prefer to say, "I don't know" than "I don't know, BUT..." It's just an excuse, most of the time, for not knowing an answer.

Then you've made the first mistake of theology. This is also why his name is I am..its not finished because to finish it would be to limit the unlimited. Sorry to tell you that your brain isn't big enought to understand God my friend. You will seem glimpses of parts of him, and we can most assuridly talk about those, but to atempt to explain what is unexplainable is sheer ignorance and silliness.

Did I ever say I understood Him? No; I said it's possible for all to understand Him. Just as Jedi said, a main theme of the Bible is getting to know God, and I believe He has made that task possible, no matter how complex or frustrating it is. We are to have a personal relationship with our Savior; how can we not know Him? If He created the earth then how can He not manifest Himself through the physical law, through nature, through what He made? Why would He not?
 
Upvote 0

jodrey

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2003
430
0
41
Quincy, Massachusetts
✟567.00
Suppose you read a hand-written letter that contains the phrase “I l*ve you,” and then you find a copy of that same letter that says “I love y*u” (the *’s stand for letters that are written or copied so poorly that they’re illegible). What do you suppose the original message was? Yep, you got it: “I love you.” In the case of scripture, this is far more elaborate. Instead of merely two copies to compare and contrast to try to get the original message, there are thousands of copies, and the more copies, the better. No other book of antiquity is as well attested to as the Bible.

Well, the way I understand it is that these copies grow in number like the branches of a tree. If one error is made, that error would be copied through to the following three branches, then grow to the next fifteen, and maybe into thousands. Where changes occur is very important, if they occur. What if the originals that were copied themselves are deliberately switched or tinkered with before the copies? The error would remain for all the following generations. Although it is certainly a decent method of proving the integrity of documents, it is not fool-proof.

I have an entire report on this subject, naming specific papyrus pieces of scripture, their dates (some New Testament manuscripts dating easily within the first century C.E.), and all sorts of stuff.

Interesting. Can I take a look? :)
 
Upvote 0

Jedi

Knight
Sep 19, 2002
3,995
149
41
United States
Visit site
✟5,275.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I though[sic] his full name was I am that I am. Meaning that he is the being who just... is (is is being used as a verb here). You know, because back when the Bible was written, many people were named after their trade, and since God's trade was being there, that's what his name was.
It’s also often seen as God describing Himself as a necessary being.

I never heard what you are talking about Jedi. Every book or archaeological magazine that I have read that had something to do with the major events in the Bible, keep saying the same thing, that the Bible's history is still extremely hazy and every discovery we make regarding it, just confuses the text further.

Perhaps you should read books outside of the Jesus Seminar. People like Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, Funk, Burton Mack, and Robert J. Miller come to conclusions that are based primarily on their own presuppositions. The fact that you haven’t read of any discovery that’s supported the Bible screams that your readings are very one-sided. What about Hezekiah and the Siloam Inscription (the oldest Hebrew script in existence)? Or perhaps the Prism of Sennacherib?

Not a single event in the Bible has been accurately proven to have happened, and those that evidence say DID happen, happened very differently than the Bible's accounts say they did.
Again, it seems your knowledge of archaeology is very one-sided and very narrowly limited. Archaeologist Nelson Glueck asserts, “It may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible” (Rivers in the Desert: A History of the Negev, 31).

As for religions that predate Judaism. Here's one: Zorasterism, the earliest monotheistic religion discovered to date, and records of it showed that it was popular throughout the fertile crescent where civilization arose thousands of years before Judaism. Not only that but many Zorasteristic scriptures have survived, many in better condtion[sic] than later scrolls.

Ah, but not in not in such great number as the manuscripts on Judaism. The more manuscripts, the better. Frederic G. Kenyon writes, "The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, or early translations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world” (http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/DAILYF/2002/08/daily-08-23-2002.shtml).

Besides, translating scrolls and pachment[sic] isn't as simple as you make it sound Jedi.

That would be why people dedicate their entire lives to it.

There are not just thousands lying around waiting for us to compare.

Yes, there are. Tens of thousands of Old Testament Manuscripts, and even more for the New Testament.

A situation more fitting to the actual situation than I l*ove you to I llove y*u would be I **** **u to * ***e **u.

Hardly. The overwhelming majority of all variants are a result of the common scribal errors such as Haplography, Dittography, Metathesis, Fusion, Fission, Homophony, Homoeoteleuton, and accidental omissions. None of these are as serious as you make them out to be, where nearly all of the text is magically turned illegible.

You cannot just translate a few letters and fill in the blanks, a mistake of only a single letter could change the meaning of the text completely.

That’s why there are thousands of manuscripts out there to use for comparison and correlation. It’s not just one little illegible manuscript that you have to guess the message of.

I don't want to be looked at as a heretic or something, I am a Christian.

Really? Wow. My apologies – I mistook you for another atheist looking for a fight here. :)

Numbers DO have a beginning by the way. WE invented numbers.

Okay, now I just think you’ve lost a lot of credibility by saying this. Mathematicians would laugh at you from Harvard to Princeton. Mathematical numbers and laws exist objectively from our perspective of them. If we really made them up, then in math, there is no real “right” or “wrong” answer, since it’s purely imaginary. As such, it makes little sense to correct a child on his math homework. If numbers are nothing but things from human imagination (since we “made them up”), then me saying, "1+1=2" is just as true as saying, “1+1=82” or even saying, “You have to chop off all thirteen heads of a unicorn to kill it.” All three are things I, a human, simply “made up," and if I make something up, then it's whatever I want it to be.

Without someone to name them then there is no "five".

So without someone to name a “gorilla,” there is no “gorilla.”

Same thing with 180 degrees in triangles, if we had a different measurement for degrees, then triangles might have 31 degrees in them, or four thousand.

You’re confusing the matter now. Words are REFERENCES. Did you not read what I typed? The reference doesn’t necessarily change simply because the word changes.

Numbers were INVENTED, they didn't form. Two trees standing side by side have no number if there is no sentient species to call them so.

And if a tree falls in the middle of a forest, and no one’s around to hear it, it doesn’t make a sound. :rolleyes:

A tiger in the wild would see two trees and just call them "shelter" or a good place to sleep for the night.

Simply because some being does not recognize or see the existence of a particular thing does not decide whether that actual thing objectively exists.

Does that answer your question?

I just wanted to hear you say that. It’s sort of like Socrates’ reduction to absurdity, and it’s neat to see someone’s stance be brought down to it. :)

We also invented the laws of physics.

I’m hearing more laughing coming from graduates of Harvard and Princeton. You’re a very funny fellow. :)

Well, I don't quite agree with your last two posts, Tyr. Numbers have always existed; your argument is that they were not always comminicable[sic].

Thanks, Jodrey. Nice to be on the same side for once, eh? :)

Well, the way I understand it is that these copies grow in number like the branches of a tree. If one error is made, that error would be copied through to the following three branches, then grow to the next fifteen, and maybe into thousands.

This is why the earlier the manuscript, the better. What’s really neat, though, is that manuscripts thousands of years apart (i.e. the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text manuscripts) remain 95% identical, with the other 5% mostly being nothing more than slips of the pen or spelling mistakes that are pretty easy to identify.

Where changes occur is very important, if they occur.

Oh, of course. However, from my research into this subject, there hasn’t been any serious discrepancies concerning doctrine that isn’t supported in an undisputed passage elsewhere.

What if the originals that were copied themselves are deliberately switched or tinkered with before the copies?

And what if these posts of mine really aren’t typed by an intelligent human being, but rather, a brainless monkey typing madly on a keyboard only because it has an overactive nervous system? I think we have to go what is most reasonable here. Ockham’s Razor, baby.

Interesting. Can I take a look?

I can point you in the general direction, but the material is too much to type up here. There’s a decent amount of it in the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics by Dr. Norman L. Geisler (under Old Testament Manuscripts, and New Testament Manuscripts). There’s also other things you can look into like A Survey of Old Testament Introduction by Gleason L. Archer, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts by Kenyon G. Frederic, and so forth. You might also what to look up F.F. Bruce and see what he’s written on this subject of manuscripts.
 
Upvote 0

jodrey

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2003
430
0
41
Quincy, Massachusetts
✟567.00
And what if these posts of mine really aren’t typed by an intelligent human being, but rather, a brainless monkey typing madly on a keyboard only because it has an overactive nervous system? I think we have to go what is most reasonable here. Ockham’s Razor, baby.

Um, sure... But I think this is a legitimate point; don't you?

I can point you in the general direction, but the material is too much to type up here. There’s a decent amount of it in the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics by Dr. Norman L. Geisler (under Old Testament Manuscripts, and New Testament Manuscripts). There’s also other things you can look into like A Survey of Old Testament Introduction by Gleason L. Archer, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts by Kenyon G. Frederic, and so forth. You might also what to look up F.F. Bruce and see what he’s written on this subject of manuscripts.

Okay, cool, thanks. So far I've got the FARM documents, which are great, but something tells me you'd have problems with those. ;)

Triforce!
 
Upvote 0

Jedi

Knight
Sep 19, 2002
3,995
149
41
United States
Visit site
✟5,275.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Um, sure... But I think this is a legitimate point; don't you?

Of course. But if you think about it, a LOT of things we take for granted as true aren't really proven beyond all possible doubt. My room mate may be out right now saving the world with the powers of Superman, but I think we should all go with what is most reasonable. If we were to believe things that could only be proven as necessary truths (i.e. I exist, since I'd have to exist in order to doubt my own existence), we'd be left with only a handful of things we hold to be true.

Triforce!

You're the first person to recognize my new avatar. It's actually one I had years ago and used at another message board, but only now have I decided to bring it back. Gotta love those Zelda games. Have you experienced the newest one (Wind Waker) on Gamecube? I had serious doubts at first, because of the cartoon-like look, but now that I've played it all the way through, I'm left astonished & amazed. It just might be the greatest Zelda game ever - even greater than "A Link to the Past" (Which, until now, seems to have been a lot of people's favorite).
 
Upvote 0

jodrey

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2003
430
0
41
Quincy, Massachusetts
✟567.00
Of course. But if you think about it, a LOT of things we take for granted as true aren't really proven beyond all possible doubt. My room mate may be out right now saving the world with the powers of Superman, but I think we should all go with what is most reasonable. If we were to believe things that could only be proven as necessary truths (i.e. I exist, since I'd have to exist in order to doubt my own existence), we'd be left with only a handful of things we hold to be true.

Well, yes, and probably it is very accurate, if not for the possibility I've mentioned. I'm not saying it's not a good method, only that there is room for doubt, as there is with many things. What I find interesting is the new discoveries, of which many thousands of original manuscripts exist, and it makes sense that by comparing these documents to what we now have would be an even better process of determining validity. We could learn things such as more detailed early Christian doctrine, customs of the times, and more history.

Let's assume I don't like to read books and don't have money to buy them. Do you have any recommended web sites on the subject?

You're the first person to recognize my new avatar. It's actually one I had years ago and used at another message board, but only now have I decided to bring it back. Gotta love those Zelda games. Have you experienced the newest one (Wind Waker) on Gamecube? I had serious doubts at first, because of the cartoon-like look, but now that I've played it all the way through, I'm left astonished & amazed. It just might be the greatest Zelda game ever - even greater than "A Link to the Past" (Which, until now, seems to have been a lot of people's favorite).

I love "A Link to the Past." I have it all memorized -- but then, who doesn't? ;) I'm surprised by your review of the new Zelda game. I've heard nothing but bad about it, but mainly by way of graphics. What did you think of the Zelda 64 games? Personally, I think the games have taken the wrong direction. It should have never been made 3D first-person, but should have remained in the top-down fixed view; imagine how much of the freed cartridge memory could have been used for gameplay instead of the ever-important graphics. I'm unofficially out of the console game system bracket now anyway, but "[Super] Zelda" was a great game. :)
 
Upvote 0

Jedi

Knight
Sep 19, 2002
3,995
149
41
United States
Visit site
✟5,275.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What I find interesting is the new discoveries, of which many thousands of original manuscripts exist, and it makes sense that by comparing these documents to what we now have would be an even better process of determining validity.

Oh, of course. However, to my knowledge, and the knowledge of all the archaeologists I've read from as well as my Bible professor (who knows more about the Bible than I could possibly hope to learn in 5 life times), we don't have any of the original manuscripts (called the "autographs") of either the Old or New Testaments. It would be handy, though.

Let's assume I don't like to read books and don't have money to buy them. Do you have any recommended web sites on the subject?

You might want to take a look around this site, http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/DAILYF/2002/08/daily-08-23-2002.shtml. I haven’t visited it extensively, but that’s where I referenced at least one of my quotes concerning the topic at hand. As it ends up, nearly all of my references are actual books and encyclopedias I have sitting near me rather than online sources. Also, check out http://www.carm.org and see what they have there on ancient manuscripts (I don’t know if they’ll have anything, but I think it’s worth a shot).

I'm surprised by your review of the new Zelda game. I've heard nothing but bad about it, but mainly by way of graphics.

These people have probably never played it, then. All the gaming magazines I’ve read have given it a perfect 10, and in talking about it with other gamers online at gaming message boards (i.e. http://www.x-sages.com), I’ve heard nothing but good about it. The only people who still say anything bad about it seem to be those who have never really sat down and played it. These are the sort of people who judge a book by the initial glance they take at the cover.

What did you think of the Zelda 64 games?

I thought they were pretty good for the most part. Ocarina of Time could’ve used a bit more action from time to time, but I was still hyped about it. Wind Waker, though, beats the 64 Zelda’s easily.
 
Upvote 0

jodrey

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2003
430
0
41
Quincy, Massachusetts
✟567.00
Oh, of course. However, to my knowledge, and the knowledge of all the archaeologists I've read from as well as my Bible professor (who knows more about the Bible than I could possibly hope to learn in 5 life times), we don't have any of the original manuscripts (called the "autographs") of either the Old or New Testaments. It would be handy, though.

I heard that only a fraction of these libraries has been translated. Is it certain that no originals or other copies of Biblical books exist among them? What do they say happened to the originals? It would make sense that they'd be passed down through inheritance, but apparently things were just copied. Why is this?

You might want to take a look around this site, http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/DAILYF...8-23-2002.shtml. I haven’t visited it extensively, but that’s where I referenced at least one of my quotes concerning the topic at hand. As it ends up, nearly all of my references are actual books and encyclopedias I have sitting near me rather than online sources. Also, check out http://www.carm.org and see what they have there on ancient manuscripts (I don’t know if they’ll have anything, but I think it’s worth a shot).

Not too much information there. I'll do some Google searching and see what I come up with.

These people have probably never played it, then. All the gaming magazines I’ve read have given it a perfect 10, and in talking about it with other gamers online at gaming message boards (i.e. http://www.x-sages.com), I’ve heard nothing but good about it. The only people who still say anything bad about it seem to be those who have never really sat down and played it. These are the sort of people who judge a book by the initial glance they take at the cover.

Yes, I believe most people I've heard talk about it never really played it. I'll have to give it a shot, if I can get my hands on a copy... and a Gamecube.
 
Upvote 0

Jedi

Knight
Sep 19, 2002
3,995
149
41
United States
Visit site
✟5,275.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What do they say happened to the originals? It would make sense that they'd be passed down through inheritance, but apparently things were just copied. Why is this?

Because the originals were probably written on papyrus scrolls, and unlike paper, papyrus doesn't last very long.

I'll have to give it a shot, if I can get my hands on a copy... and a Gamecube.

Sounds good. I really don't think you'd regret it. :)
 
Upvote 0

jodrey

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2003
430
0
41
Quincy, Massachusetts
✟567.00
Because the originals were probably written on papyrus scrolls, and unlike paper, papyrus doesn't last very long.

But papyrus has lasted centuries, hasn't it? Weren't the Dead Sea Scrolls written on papyrus? I believe many of these recent discoveries were also on papyrus. Were these better preserved?
 
Upvote 0

Jedi

Knight
Sep 19, 2002
3,995
149
41
United States
Visit site
✟5,275.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
But papyrus has lasted centuries, hasn't it? Weren't the Dead Sea Scrolls written on papyrus? I believe many of these recent discoveries were also on papyrus. Were these better preserved?

Only in very rare cases where they had been left alone for thousands of years. Take a look at the amount of papyrus manuscripts we have versus parchment or vellum, and papyrus is rather rare.
 
Upvote 0