Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (9005 total)
36 online now:
caffeine, CosmicChimp, PaulK, Son Goku (4 members, 32 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,189 Year: 12,937/23,288 Month: 662/1,527 Week: 101/240 Day: 0/29 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Superiority of the 'Protestant Canon'?
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7051
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


(1)
Message 34 of 154 (664146)
05-29-2012 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 4:42 AM


What a bunch of utter crap.

Concerning the New Testament, we have more than 24,000
manuscripts with 99.5% internal consistency showing the New Testament we have today is accurate with regard to the original autographs. No other ancient historical document has nearly this level of evidence. The closest is the Iliad with 643 manuscripts. Many documents like Caesar's Gallic Wars are considered accurately preserved with just 5-10 manuscripts dating 1,000 years or more after the originals.

However, we have manuscripts for the New Testament dating less than a century after the original documents (autographs) like the John Rylands Papyrus (P52), P104, P90, P64+67, and P98. We have complete or nearly complete copies of the New Testament dating as early as 200-400 A.D. like the Sahidic Coptic Version, Sinaitic Curiac Version, and Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

Many of these manuscripts you fundies like to claim are nothing more than a single scrap. Only about fifty manuscripts contain the entire New Testament, and of these only one, the Codex Sinaiticus is a Uncial manuscript. Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephremi are missing significant portions.

There are less than sixty complete manuscripts including the three above. All others are miniscule manuscripts that date form the 9th century and later.

Thus, we can look at these early documents to see whether later translations (like the King James Version) were reliable translations of the original Greek/Hebrew text seen in such early manuscripts.

The writers of the KJV used flawed manuscripts. Parts of the KJV are based translations by Erasmus that were know was based upon a 12th century manuscript that is one of the worst manuscripts there are.

Here are some sources for you.
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible And Why
The Rejection of Pascal's Wager
The Text of the New Testament

You can see that all of these books use references and footnotes to show you where they got their evidence from. They are not pulling it out of their ass as AIG and fundies tend to do.

How does it feel, as a Christian, to be filling creationwiki full of lies?

OFF TOPIC
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 4:42 AM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Theodoric, posted 06-05-2012 11:13 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7051
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 39 of 154 (664802)
06-05-2012 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Theodoric
05-29-2012 11:14 AM


Bump for Jz
Aren't you going to come back to support your arguments?

No defense of this

Concerning the New Testament, we have more than 24,000
manuscripts with 99.5% internal consistency showing the New Testament we have today is accurate with regard to the original autographs. No other ancient historical document has nearly this level of evidence. The closest is the Iliad with 643 manuscripts. Many documents like Caesar's Gallic Wars are considered accurately preserved with just 5-10 manuscripts dating 1,000 years or more after the originals.

However, we have manuscripts for the New Testament dating less than a century after the original documents (autographs) like the John Rylands Papyrus (P52), P104, P90, P64+67, and P98. We have complete or nearly complete copies of the New Testament dating as early as 200-400 A.D. like the Sahidic Coptic Version, Sinaitic Curiac Version, and Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

Or how about a defense of the manuscripts used for the KJV. You have heard of Ersamus haven't you? You do know what Greek manuscripts were used for the KJV don't you?

OFF TOPIC
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Theodoric, posted 05-29-2012 11:14 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-05-2012 3:38 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020