Originally posted by 37818
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Could God reincarnate humans if he wanted to?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostThere is a minority of scholars which would disagree with many of their choices as to the original reading of texts too. There is a common consensus by scholars on both sides of the readings that the gospel manuscripts included the names for which they are named too.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostBy far the majority of scholars consider the names assigned t the gospels as authors were assigned after ~150 AD. There is no evidence for the existence of the gospels in the time that the authors attributed lived.
If you believe that the attributed authors did not write the 4 gospels, then provide actual evidence to prove it.
And we do have evidence the gospels existed before 150AD. They were extensively quoted by people like Clement of Rome and Polycarp who lived in the first century. And we have fragments of the gospels earlier than 150AD.
Comment
-
Likely the earliest reference to the Gospels can be found in I Timothy 5:18 which is from the 1st century (even those who say Paul isn't the author place it no later than the first decades of the 2nd)
While the first part is quoting Deuteronomy 25:4, the second is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament but is a quote from Jesus contained in Luke 10:7.
Wayne A. Grudem, who served as the general editor of the ESV Study Bible, has pointed out in his The Canon of Scripture that
And note that Paul is quoting Luke here on the same level as Moses and calling both Scripture.Last edited by rogue06; 06-22-2018, 10:13 AM.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostLikely the earliest reference to the Gospels can be found in I Timothy 5:18 which is from the 1st century (even those who say Paul isn't the author place it no later than the first decades of the 2nd)
While the first part is quoting Deuteronomy 25:4, the second is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament but is a quote from Jesus contained in Luke 10:7.
Wayne A. Grudem, who served as the general editor of the ESV Study Bible, has pointed out in his The Canon of Scripture that
And note that Paul is quoting Luke here on the same level as Moses and calling both Scripture.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYou keep repeating yourself. Quoting someone else's opinions is not evidence.
If you believe that the attributed authors did not write the 4 gospels, then provide actual evidence to prove it.
And we do have evidence the gospels existed before 150AD. They were extensively quoted by people like Clement of Rome and Polycarp who lived in the first century. And we have fragments of the gospels earlier than 150AD.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThere is only one gospel fragment of John that may possibly be dated as early as 125 AD, but the range of possible dates is more recent: 125-175 AD. All other fragments are more cent then 150 AD. We have evidence something in terms of early writing before ~150 AD, possibly simpler early writing like Q, but not named gospels as we have them by the fourth or fifth century. Clement nor Polycarp named the gospels.
Polycarp was John's disciple. HE KNEW JOHN.
Paul quoted Luke's gospel. Paul's letter was written around 60ad.
Again, if you wish to claim that the gospels did not even exist in the first century or were not written by the 4 authors, you need to provide evidence. You have not done so. You are very good at avoiding doing so, but that isn't fooling anyone.
Comment
-
Comment
-
You realize what a textual variant is, right? Even a different spelling or change of word order is considered a variant.
If I had three copies that that said,
Tassman is a complete and utter moron.
Tssman is an utter and complete moron.
Tassman is a complete & utter moron.
I am pretty sure we could piece together what the original said with a high degree of accuracy.
And nice try at changing the subject. At first it was knowing the authors of the gospels, now you are saying we can't know what the originals said or if they existed?
You think all of those copies just popped up independently?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYou realize what a textual variant is, right? Even a different spelling or change of word order is considered a variant.
If I had three copies that that said,
Tassman is a complete and utter moron.
Tssman is an utter and complete moron.
Tassman is a complete & utter moron.
I am pretty sure we could piece together what the original said with a high degree of accuracy.
And nice try at changing the subject. At first it was knowing the authors of the gospels, now you are saying we can't know what the originals said or if they existed?
You think all of those copies just popped up independently?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYou realize what a textual variant is, right? Even a different spelling or change of word order is considered a variant.
If I had three copies that that said,
Tassman is a complete and utter moron.
Tssman is an utter and complete moron.
Tassman is a complete & utter moron.
I am pretty sure we could piece together what the original said with a high degree of accuracy.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Post
Oh Really!! MOST
No we don't have the originals. We have THOUSANDS of manuscript copies. They have variants in the text. Which don't matter because using textual criticism, we can easily reconstruct the original text. This is used not only for the bible, but for any historical documents. Look it up. The more copies you have to work with, the EASIER it is to reconstruct the original.
And your second quote?
According to Islamic-Awareness ...
Well, let us see what Ralph Earle writing in "The Rational For An Eclectic New Testament Text" in The NIV: The Making Of A Contemporary Translation says:
What Greek text was used by the translators of the NIV New Testament? It was basically that found in the United Bible Societies' and Nestle's printed Greek New Testament which contain the latest and best Greek text available.
In many passage there is no way of being absolutely certain as to what was the original reading because the best Greek manuscripts, both earlier and later ones, have variant readings. In such cases the translators were asked to weigh the evidence carefully and make their own decision. Of course, such decision was subject to reexamination by the Committee on Bible Translation. In the UBS text, the adopted readings are marked with an A, B, C, or D. Those marked "A" are virtually certain, "B" less certain, "C" doubtful and "D" high doubtful. It is the last, especially, that have to be weighed carefully. https://www.islamic-awareness.org/bi...ivorigins.html
Y'all might want to check the accuracy of your sources before using them in an argument about accuracy of the bible. Just sayin. If it is from an islamic apologetics site, you can be sure it is innaccurate or incomplete.Last edited by Sparko; 06-26-2018, 09:52 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostWhat does simply repeating your nonsense gain you?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostWhat does simply repeating your nonsense gain you? I already answered you on this.
No we don't have the originals. We have THOUSANDS of manuscript copies. They have variants in the text. Which don't matter because using textual criticism, we can easily reconstruct the original text. This is used not only for the bible, but for any historical documents. Look it up. The more copies you have to work with, the EASIER it is to reconstruct the original.Well, let us see what Ralph Earle writing in "The Rational For An Eclectic New Testament Text" in The NIV: The Making Of A Contemporary Translation says:
What Greek text was used by the translators of the NIV New Testament? It was basically that found in the United Bible Societies' and Nestle's printed Greek New Testament which contain the latest and best Greek text available.
In many passage there is no way of being absolutely certain as to what was the original reading because the best Greek manuscripts, both earlier and later ones, have variant readings. In such cases the translators were asked to weigh the evidence carefully and make their own decision. Of course, such decision was subject to reexamination by the Committee on Bible Translation. In the UBS text, the adopted readings are marked with an A, B, C, or D. Those marked "A" are virtually certain, "B" less certain, "C" doubtful and "D" high doubtful. It is the last, especially, that have to be weighed carefully.Last edited by Tassman; 06-27-2018, 01:04 AM.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Sparko, 06-25-2024, 03:03 PM
|
37 responses
189 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 06-29-2024, 03:12 AM | ||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-20-2024, 10:04 AM
|
27 responses
147 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
06-27-2024, 01:35 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 06-18-2024, 08:18 AM
|
82 responses
481 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 06-28-2024, 03:48 AM | ||
Started by whag, 06-15-2024, 09:43 AM
|
156 responses
645 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
06-29-2024, 06:38 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
468 responses
2,142 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 06-05-2024, 04:09 AM |
Comment