Originally posted by Tim Rout
There were no photocopy machines in ancient times – no printing presses. Every copy of the Bible had to be written out by hand. One would think that after thousands of years and hundreds of generations of hand written manuscripts, that the content of the Bible would surely have become skewed. After all, it's hard enough to pass a simple sentence around a room of friends and have it return to the originator unaltered.
A lot of people believe exactly that.
Originally posted by Tim Rout
Funny that you should doubt the historicity of the Bible.Did you know that the New Testament is the single most attested work of ancient literature in existence?
There were no photocopy machines in ancient times – no printing presses. Every copy of the Bible had to be written out by hand. One would think that after thousands of years and hundreds of generations of hand written manuscripts, that the content of the Bible would surely have become skewed. After all, it's hard enough to pass a simple sentence around a room of friends and have it return to the originator unaltered.
Yet the evidence shows that this is precisely what happened with the New Testament. The Apostle John finished off the book of Revelation around 95AD, closing the biblical canon. We have more than 24,000 ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, some 5000 of them written in the original Greek and dating from 125AD to no later than 1520AD. What do you think happens when we compare the very oldest manuscripts to the very latest?
We find no change in substantive content...PERIOD! Sure, the odd word here or there got smudged, or the odd line was accidentally repeated, or the odd margin note improperly included, etc. But through the science of textual criticism, we are able to figure out how the original should have looked. Incidentally, none of these transmission boo boos does anything to alter the meaning of the text. Thus the evidence clearly supports the historicity of the New Testament. And the New Testament clearly affirms the authenticity of the Old Testament. Yes, the Bible is primarily a religious book. But additionally...YES, it most certainly DOES report accurate history. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the vast body of supporting evidence.
The bible was not put together until 325 AD. See First Council of Nicaea.
It is clear you don't know what you are talking about.
Originally posted by Shakyamunisoni agree. i mean ya know writing about a guy from 300 years ago and you only know about him through word of mouth, it makes me doubt he was so great. he could have been a hobo who helped a guy.
The bible was not put together until 325 AD. See First Council of Nicaea.It is clear you don't know what you are talking about.
THat is actually quite wrong. It was some final assembly, but the books were already in use for over 200 years.
But Trout hasa point. Not only the New Testament, but also the Old Testament has a good track record of accurate copying. Our oldest copy of the Old Testament we have (and had for a long time), the so-called Masoretic text dates to sometime around 900 or 1000AD. When they found the DeadSea scrolls, dated to about 250BC - so more than 1000 years older, the differences were minute. A number and some spelling is diiferent, but the errors are very very very few. That at least attests that also the Old Testament was copied extremely accurately.
Originally posted by Tim Rout
Funny that you should doubt the historicity of the Bible.Did you know that the New Testament is the single most attested work of ancient literature in existence?
There were no photocopy machines in ancient times – no printing presses. Every copy of the Bible had to be written out by hand. One would think that after thousands of years and hundreds of generations of hand written manuscripts, that the content of the Bible would surely have become skewed. After all, it's hard enough to pass a simple sentence around a room of friends and have it return to the originator unaltered.
Yet the evidence shows that this is precisely what happened with the New Testament. The Apostle John finished off the book of Revelation around 95AD, closing the biblical canon. We have more than 24,000 ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, some 5000 of them written in the original Greek and dating from 125AD to no later than 1520AD. What do you think happens when we compare the very oldest manuscripts to the very latest?
We find no change in substantive content...PERIOD! Sure, the odd word here or there got smudged, or the odd line was accidentally repeated, or the odd margin note improperly included, etc. But through the science of textual criticism, we are able to figure out how the original should have looked. Incidentally, none of these transmission boo boos does anything to alter the meaning of the text. Thus the evidence clearly supports the historicity of the New Testament. And the New Testament clearly affirms the authenticity of the Old Testament. Yes, the Bible is primarily a religious book. But additionally...YES, it most certainly DOES report accurate history. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the vast body of supporting evidence.
The Bible has been changed may times over. Look at the different version that exist today and they do in fact alter the text. So you fail; biblically fail at that.
Originally posted by queeq
THat is actually quite wrong. It was some final assembly, but the books were already in use for over 200 years.But Trout hasa point. Not only the New Testament, but also the Old Testament has a good track record of accurate copying. Our oldest copy of the Old Testament we have (and had for a long time), the so-called Masoretic text dates to sometime around 900 or 1000AD. When they found the DeadSea scrolls, dated to about 250BC - so more than 1000 years older, the differences were minute. A number and some spelling is diiferent, but the errors are very very very few. That at least attests that also the Old Testament was copied extremely accurately.
Sorry, I wasn't talking about the writing of the individual books, but the assembly and order.
When Tim Rout said "The Apostle John finished off the book of Revelation around 95AD, closing the biblical canon." he was wrong, and showed that he had no knowledge of the Council of Nicaea and how the bible was canonized.
Originally posted by queeq
THat is actually quite wrong. It was some final assembly, but the books were already in use for over 200 years.But Trout hasa point. Not only the New Testament, but also the Old Testament has a good track record of accurate copying. Our oldest copy of the Old Testament we have (and had for a long time), the so-called Masoretic text dates to sometime around 900 or 1000AD. When they found the DeadSea scrolls, dated to about 250BC - so more than 1000 years older, the differences were minute. A number and some spelling is diiferent, but the errors are very very very few. That at least attests that also the Old Testament was copied extremely accurately.
Funny, there are scholors that say the Dead Sea scrolls paint many aspects of what we know as the Bible differently.
I could be thinking of something else, but don't they DSS also conain left out material from omitted authors?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sorry, I wasn't talking about the writing of the individual books, but the assembly and order.When Tim Rout said "The Apostle John finished off the book of Revelation around 95AD, closing the biblical canon." he was wrong, and showed that he had no knowledge of the Council of Nicaea and how the bible was canonized.
All the books were already wirtten, they just weren't formally put together until Nicaea.
But even the Council of Nicea wasn't about a bunch of guys with 1000 books who decided to pick just the ones now collected in the Bible. It was some final compilation of attested books. Ithink only the canoninial books were slightly in dispute, hence the Catholic Church has them around in a separate book. There's no conspiracy or anything, of books being hidden or something. Like the Gospel of Judas, that book was written way after 300.
For reasearch I once read the Book of Enoch. Well, when you read that you understand why it doesn't fit in the canon: it's very vague and mystical, very unlike the very sober and factual recounts of the canon.
Originally posted by queeq
But even the Council of Nicea wasn't about a bunch of guys with 1000 books who decided to pick just the ones now collected in the Bible. It was some final compilation of attested books. Ithink only the canoninial books were slightly in dispute, hence the Catholic Church has them around in a separate book. There's no conspiracy or anything, of books being hidden or something. Like the Gospel of Judas, that book was written way after 300.
For reasearch I once read the Book of Enoch. Well, when you read that you understand why it doesn't fit in the canon: it's very vague and mystical, very unlike the very sober and factual recounts of the canon.
I'm sorry, but that book was listed by the Council of Nicaea as one of the heretical books. So, it was around by that time.
Originally posted by queeq
It ws? Could be. But it's definately not from the 1st century. It's dated some time around 300. It's a gnostic book and they date to some time between 200 or 300 or something. I'm not into it that much, but I did understand it's a very late book.
However, we do not have the originals. The copy is around 300AD.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Damn near all of your posts in this forum paint Christianity in a negative light, so if anything you should be high-fiving him.
[list=1][*]My issue is with his criticism of another for behavior that he is guilty of as well, not necessarily for his disdain of Christianity or Christians.
[*]There is quite a difference between critical examination and antagonism.[/list]
Originally posted by queeq
No, it's just your POV on the matter. And since you don't really contribute to anything except being a yes-man to DK, maybe you should refrain from insulting fellow board members.
I had been participating in this thread for twelve pages before I reproved you for your response to DevilKing.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars generally hold that The Bible is an imaginative fiction, and all stories within it are of a metaphorical character. None of the early stories are held to have a solid historical basis, and only some of the later stories possess at most only a few tiny fragments of genuine historical memory—which by their definition are only those points which are supported by archaeological discoveries. In this view, all of the stories about the biblical patriarchs are fictional, and the patriarchs never existed. Further, mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars hold that the twelve tribes of Israel never existed, King David and King Saul never existed, and that the united kingdom of Israel, which The Bible says that David and Solomon ruled, never existed.Even among Biblical Maximalists who hold that the stories of The Bible describe actual historical events; some believe that the people mentioned in The Bible are historical figures, but that the stories about them are not historically accurate—not even in broad strokes; while others believe that the people mentioned in The Bible are fictional creations with only the slightest relation to any real historical persons in the distant past.
In short, The Bible is a collective work of narrative fiction that elaborates upon the lives of a combination of fictional and historical characters to emphasize, explain, and embody the cosmological and moral beliefs of Bronze-Age Mediterranean and Semitic peoples that resulted from thousands of years of cultural syncretism, i.e. historical fiction.
". . . don't really contribute to anything," indeed. 🙄
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The bible was not put together until 325 AD. See First Council of Nicaea.It is clear you don't know what you are talking about.
The 27 books of the New Testament were completed before the end of the first century and were immediately received by the early church as authoritative. While the official canon was ratified in the fourth century, your belief that Constantine's council "put together" the New Testament is erroneous.
I don't suppose you're a fan of Dan Brown?
Originally posted by Tim Rout
The 27 books of the New Testament were completed before the end of the first century and were immediately received by the early church as authoritative. While the official canon was ratified in the fourth century, your belief that Constantine's council "put together" the New Testament is erroneous.I don't suppose you're a fan of Dan Brown?
By the time of the council of Nicea there were hundreds of book that the early Christians used including the Gnostic Gospels. The 27 were among them.
See the Ethiopian Bible.
I have never read any books by Dan Brown. Is he any good?