@kellyjay saidIt was you who introduced 'being there' as the criterion of what we can know, not me. I'm simply applying your own criterion to your own pronouncements.
You were not there so for you there is no way you can make any pronouncements on the validity by your standards, repeatedly saying you can’t know doesn’t change anything.
@kellyjay said on page 30 of this thread:
If you want to talk about the distant past neither of us were there and by hypotheticals prove anything.
So, I put it to you again, by your own criterion of truth, not one of the gospellers was writing about things he himself had witnessed, because they weren't there. Mark's was the first one written, biblical scholars are in agreement on this, no sooner than 80 AD, possibly as late as 110 AD, and he was not one of the Apostles. It's hearsay.
@moonbus saidThat had to do with hypothetical reasoning, looking at what is here was the point to my statement, making things up on the fly from evidence that doesn't exist was the point. There were communications between people signed, that all were placed in the same time period, written in three different languages, written on three different continents all talking about the same man Jesus Christ. You say they are not authentic placing them long after the events, so dismissing them without cause.
It was you who introduced 'being there' as the criterion of what we can know, not me. I'm simply applying your own criterion to your own pronouncements.
@kellyjay said on page 30 of this thread:
If you want to talk about the distant past neither of us were there and by hypotheticals prove anything.
So, I put it to you again, by your own criterion of truth, not ...[text shortened]... no sooner than 80 AD, possibly as late as 110 AD, and he was not one of the Apostles. It's hearsay.
Since there are also reasons to accept them as authentically written by, to whom, at the time of the events in question. More evidence for their authenticity than most historical documents we see in the number of copies that agree with one another and an array of other factors.
The earliest manuscripts are dated within decades of the events even by your time stamps that make the originals earlier, with the sheer number of copies written in different languages that would come after the event. You are not disproving anything even with your argument, only confirming the validity of it, since it is the copies being spread around the world that we are finding.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117373
321d
@kellyjay saidWhy then do you think so many people find the Bible and the claims literalists make about it so hard to believe ?
That had to do with hypothetical reasoning, looking at what is here was the point to my statement, making things up on the fly from evidence that doesn't exist was the point. There were communications between people signed, that all were placed in the same time period, written in three different languages, written on three different continents all talking about the same man ...[text shortened]... irming the validity of it, since it is the copies being spread around the world that we are finding.
321d
@kellyjay saidYou are factually mistaken about the age of extant NT MSS. What survive from the 1st c. are nothing but tiny scraps.
That had to do with hypothetical reasoning, looking at what is here was the point to my statement, making things up on the fly from evidence that doesn't exist was the point. There were communications between people signed, that all were placed in the same time period, written in three different languages, written on three different continents all talking about the same man ...[text shortened]... irming the validity of it, since it is the copies being spread around the world that we are finding.
https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/02/15/the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts/
The oldest extant complete MSS date from no earlier than mid 900 AD.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/The-Qumran-texts-and-other-scrolls#ref597364
321d
1 edit
@moonbus saidTiny scraps of an original is evidence of an original. You don’t have to have a a full copy to realize the original was written.
You are factually mistaken about the age of extant NT MSS. What survive from the 1st c. are nothing but tiny scraps.
https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/02/15/the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts/
The oldest extant complete MSS date from no earlier than mid 900 AD.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/The-Qumran-texts-and-other-scrolls#ref597364
A fingerprint is all it takes to establish a whole body.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117373
320d
@kellyjay saidWhy then do you think so many people find the Bible and the claims literalists make about it so hard to believe ?
Tiny scraps of an original is evidence of an original. You don’t have to have a a full copy to realize the original was written.
A fingerprint is all it takes to establish a whole body.
@kellyjay saidYes, we know from a fingerprint that a whole body was once attached to the finger, but the analogy fails because we don't have the 'whole body' in original form in the case of the NT. All we have in the case of the NT are four tiny scraps. From four tiny scraps, we cannot draw any conclusions as to how extensive the originals were.
Tiny scraps of an original is evidence of an original. You don’t have to have a a full copy to realize the original was written.
A fingerprint is all it takes to establish a whole body.
Neither can we draw any conclusions as to the accuracy of the fuller version from the 10th c.; even if the four passages of the fuller version match the four tiny scraps, we cannot assume that the rest of the fuller version is accurate or matches the rest of whatever the four tiny scraps once fitted into.
The physical evidence from the 1st c. is very scanty. There were 900 years from the time of the Apostles, copies of copies of copies of copies, all done by hand. Then translated from a dead language. Not knowing how extensive 'the originals' were. And on top of that, knowing that even 'the originals' were not written by people who actually witnessed a resurrection. Yes, this too requires an act of faith, to believe that the version from the 10th c. is the inerrant Word of God, with no diminution, no addition, no mistranslation, no copy mistakes.
"Why then do you think so many people find the Bible and the claims literalists make about it so hard to believe ?"
320d
@moonbus saidAll the copies that came from around the world in different languages written at different times would not agree with themselves if they were not all drawning from the same original sources. They didn't copy machines back then.
Yes, we know from a fingerprint that a whole body was once attached to the finger, but the analogy fails because we don't have the 'whole body' in original form in the case of the NT. All we have in the case of the NT are four tiny scraps. From four tiny scraps, we cannot draw any conclusions as to how extensive the originals were.
Neither can we draw any conclusions as t ...[text shortened]... u think so many people find the Bible and the claims literalists make about it so hard to believe ?"
320d
@kellyjay saidThat merely proves they were all copies of something, not that the something was a true account of events which really happened as described. We could just as well have multiple copies of Homer’s Iliad; that wouldn’t prove it’s a true account of what really happened. There’s no getting around the fact that no gospel was written by an eyewitness to a resurrection. No Apostle left any writings. The texts we have are all hearsay, composed 50 and more years after the alleged occurrence.
All the copies that came from around the world in different languages written at different times would not agree with themselves if they were not all drawning from the same original sources. They didn't copy machines back then.
320d
@wonwickedclown saidhttps://www.dailychess.com/forum/help.2
Could someone help me here: https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/help/2-click-moves-on-ipad.197415
I know it's not related. But it's an annoying problem I cant get around.
318d
1 edit
@moonbus saidExactly they were all copies of the same thing, they were copies found from different times and places in different languages leading back to a single source the originals. We have far few copies of Homer's Iliad the books of the NT and you trust the copies of that work to be authentic?
That merely proves they were all copies of something, not that the something was a true account of events which really happened as described. We could just as well have multiple copies of Homer’s Iliad; that wouldn’t prove it’s a true account of what really happened. There’s no getting around the fact that no gospel was written by an eyewitness to a resurrection. No Ap ...[text shortened]... ritings. The texts we have are all hearsay, composed 50 and more years after the alleged occurrence.
You making the claim that the eyewitness were not the ones writing the new testament letters is circular reasoning, there is nothing that suggests the authors were not the ones named in them. Their disciples through time confirm these things as well with their writings, as the creeds. The information contained in the NT writings could have only been done by people who knew the area, traditions, and locations of towns and cities, and then there is nuance information we didn't even know about until this century. The way the names were handed by the NT writers, the more common names of the area at that time were always written about by adding something that set them apart from all of the other people who shared their names.
There are mountains of reasons to accept the authenticity of the scriptures' writers, the only reason not to is you don't want it to be true.
318d
@kellyjay saidFrom four tiny scraps to the oldest complete extant MS from 930 AD is a huge gap; you don't know what the rest of the MS looked like prior to the oldest complete one from 930 AD or how many copies of copies of copies of copies there were in between. Lot's of stuff could have been added, subtracted, mis-copied, mis-translated in the intervening centuries.
Exactly they were all copies of the same thing, they were copies found from different times and places in different languages leading back to a single source the originals. We have far few copies of Homer's Iliad the books of the NT and you trust the copies of that work to be authentic?
You making the claim that the eyewitness were not the ones writing the new testament ...[text shortened]... the authenticity of the scriptures' writers, the only reason not to is you don't want it to be true.
@kellyjay saidthe only reason not to [accept the authenticity of the scriptures' writers] is you don't want it to be true
There are mountains of reasons to accept the authenticity of the scriptures' writers, the only reason not to is you don't want it to be true.
The "only reason"? Goodness gracious. Saying this is a sure sign you have never looked into this issue.