smallaxe and Iasion discuss the Bible MSS etc.

[Iasion]

Greetings,

Best to have this in it's own thread, so we can keep on topic over in Darwin...

On the other hand, there are five thousand Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament, dating to within a generation of the actual writings.

False.
There are about 5 thousand Greek MSS of the NT in TOTAL -

Not ONE of them dates to within a generation of events.
Some MIGHT date to within a generation of writing.

In fact, the early MSS consist of :
* a few tiny fragments from 2nd century
* a handful of important MSS from about c.200

Have a look at this chart :
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/Robinson-list.html

You will see how many MSS date from 200 or before - 9 in total.
Most of them being dated c.200 (e.g. the crucial P46, P66 and P75)

You repeated a false claim without checking, again.


But don't forget - according to modern NT scholars (e.g. Brown) NOT ONE SINGLE NT document was written by anyone who met any Jesus, anyway.

Of course, few Christians would be aware of that, even though most priests may be.

G.Mark - written in Rome, by unknown who never went to Judea
G.Luke, G.Matt - largely copied from G.Mark - never met any of them
G.John - very late and different story

Paul - only met Jesus in a vision of some sort

Peter 1,2 - forged later by someone else
John 1,2,3 - forged later by someone else
Jude - forged later by someone else
James - forged later by someone else

Not one NT writer actually met Jesus, or took part in the events - according to NT scholars that is.

The Old testament's oldest copy of a Hebrew manuscript was dated from 980 AD, until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947. Even though the scrolls were more than a thousand years older than the next oldest dated manuscript, they proved to be word-for-word identical with the standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95% of the text, with the variation coming from slips of the pen and spelling variances.

There were TWO copies of Isaiah found -
* a very DIFFERENT version
* a MOSTLY the same version

The mostly-the-same-version is now called the famous The "Great Isaiah Scroll".
It has 1375 minor variations
and 13 significant differences.

Of course,
the faithful tell a very different story, - "word for word identical" .. "except slips of the pen",
and conspicuously ignore
the different Isaiah
the 1375 differemces
the 13 significant differences.

You didn't check the facts, again.

Of course, there is a major difference between inscriptions in stone and things written on parchment or paper.

Indeed - but YOU claimed the Bible was the "most verifiable document" of ancient times - it's not - we have originals from long before that time, as I noted. But you exclude these, so you can say "well, apart from all the ancient works which WERE much better attested than the NT, the NT is thje best attested of all those other works, not counting those that WERE better attested.)

We have no originals for any of the historical documents from that period; everything is a copy of something else.

Sure we do - such as the Res Gestae Divi Augusti - written in stone, but of course you don't count that.

But sure,
it is probably true that in a limited sense, the NT is one of the best attested documents from the period.

I suppose it's not allowed for people to have different recollections of events that they see. If you were in court and the testimony of a group of witnesses meshed PERFECTLY and EXACTLY, what would your conclusion be?

In other words,
the stream of transmission that brought the NT to us -
is SO UN-RELIABLE, that we can't even trust they got the WORDS of GOD correct !

The very words of God the Father, as God the Son is baptised -
and you are happy to entrust your soul to people who can't even be trusted to get the words of God correct.

You base your faith on a tradition that can TAMPER with the words of God - and you don't smell a rat?
Wow.

The variations of which you speak serve to further support their authencity; people wrote the Bible under inspiration.

Wow.
So, CHANGING the words of God in scripture proves it was true, and really from God.
What an incredible fantasy.

To answer these points (which are good and valid points) would get into a discussion of Christian theology, which I KNOW won't be tolerated in this thread.

Nonsense,
The EVENTS of Jesus' birth is not theology - they are meant to be history - the stories do not match at all.
The Names of Jesus' disciples are not theology - they are meant to be history - but you aren't concerned that we don't even know for sure what these peoples NAMES were?
Jesus supposedly TAUGHT how to pray - but early Christians don't know anything about this - how reliable is that?

Anyone who studies these issues will see the gaping holes in the story.

You are absolutely right. So why would people attack the Bible on the basis of wether it's been changed or not, verifiable or not?

Because YOU used the vague woolly religious term "verifiable" - what on earth does that mean?

You seemed to be fudging two different issues (as Christians often do) :
* the reliability of the MSS
* the truth of the contents

Christians like to pretend we have a reliable version of the early NT - when what we really have is a vast collection of all DIFFERENT MSS (yes, that is correct - every single MSS we have, baring tiny scraps, is different from every orher) from various periods, from which we reconstruct some possible originals.

We see clear and present evidence of the texts being changed over thee years. So, the MSS transmission is corrupt, which helps to argue against it being true.

The abundance of manuscripts and copies should be enough to convince any fair-minded observer that the words of the Bible today convey accurately the message that the original authors wanted to tell. Whether or not that message is valid is a different argument.

But they all different!
Which authors do you trust?
Do you think the Alexandrian texts are better than the Western?
Do you follow the TR perhaps?
Which bible version do you use?

What DID God say that day at the Jordan?
What WERE the names of the 12?
What DID happen that Easter morning?

There is no way to figure it out from the MSS, or the Gospels in general - the stories are so divergent they are irreconcilable.

If you disgree, then I challenge you to produce a chronology of Easter morning that combines all the 4 Gospels into one coherent story.

It is not possible - very few Christians every even try this.
Those who do will eiether give up with an excuse (when they realise it's impossible) or produce a crazy story which has people running around in circles and doing totally incoherent actions.

I REALLY hope you try this - for some Christians it's the straw that breaks the camel's back, when they realise for sure and certian that the stories must be fiction.


Iasion

 

[Medicine*Woman]

[Long quote of previous post removed. Please don't do this when it isn't necessary.]

M*W: Thank you for your excellent post!

 

[ddovala]

(Am I allowed to post here?)

I dont think it matters if the stories are real or not. All that matters is what you take from them. If you walk away feeling better about yourself spiritually, with the desire to do some good in the world what difference does it make? I always figured religion was supposed to be a way of life, not just something to preach.

I see the bible as a book full of ideas, not a depiction of history. I am a Christian because I like the lifestyle. Whether the events happened or not doesnt make the slightest bit of difference.

I think thats a big problem today -- too many people do nothing but preach their religion and forget about what the true meaning of it is.

 

[James R]

ddovala,

Do you pick and choose the parts of the bible you want to follow? Or, in your opinion, should it be an all-or-nothing thing. If you say you're a Christian, should you follow the whole bible, just the New Testament, or some other subset of the bible?

 

[ddovala]

James --

I think the bible (or any holy book) is something that people should interpret their own way. If that means picking and choosing what parts to follow, then yes. If god gives us free will, then he shouldn't have a problem with us employing it, should he? I have friends who are atheist, jewish, gay, muslim, etc -- and my feelings toward them have nothing to do with their religion. It is supposed to be an individual thing -- your own path (at least thats the way I see maximum benefit from it). I do think, though, that when it becomes institutionalized it can be a dangerous thing.

 

[Silas]

But don't forget - according to modern NT scholars (e.g. Brown) NOT ONE SINGLE NT document was written by anyone who met any Jesus, anyway.

Of course, few Christians would be aware of that, even though most priests may be.

G.Mark - written in Rome, by unknown who never went to Judea
G.Luke, G.Matt - largely copied from G.Mark - never met any of them
G.John - very late and different story

Paul - only met Jesus in a vision of some sort

Peter 1,2 - forged later by someone else
John 1,2,3 - forged later by someone else
Jude - forged later by someone else
James - forged later by someone else

Views on John's Gospel are changing. It's a bit strong to refer to books as "forged" simply because they attracted later traditions of having been composed by Disciples. 1 John, 2 John and 3 John are probably written by the same John who wrote Revelation

Not one NT writer actually met Jesus, or took part in the events - according to NT scholars that is.

This is true. But I certainly wouldn't dispute Paul's having met the real Peter and James, and they at least had first hand knowledge of Jesus.

The Old testament's oldest copy of a Hebrew manuscript was dated from 980 AD, until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947. Even though the scrolls were more than a thousand years older than the next oldest dated manuscript, they proved to be word-for-word identical with the standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95% of the text, with the variation coming from slips of the pen and spelling variances.

There were TWO copies of Isaiah found -
* a very DIFFERENT version
* a MOSTLY the same version

The mostly-the-same-version is now called the famous The "Great Isaiah Scroll".
It has 1375 minor variations
and 13 significant differences.

Of course,
the faithful tell a very different story, - "word for word identical" .. "except slips of the pen",
and conspicuously ignore
the different Isaiah
the 1375 differences
the 13 significant differences.

You didn't check the facts, again.

Neither did you. smallaxe said that it was word for word identical in 95% of the text. You have an actual count of differences which amount to actually less than 1 per cent of the total length of Isaiah (approx 145,000-150,000 characters).

Indeed - but YOU claimed the Bible was the "most verifiable document" of ancient times - it's not - we have originals from long before that time, as I noted. But you exclude these, so you can say "well, apart from all the ancient works which WERE much better attested than the NT, the NT is thje best attested of all those other works, not counting those that WERE better attested.)



Sure we do - such as the Res Gestae Divi Augusti - written in stone, but of course you don't count that.

But sure,
it is probably true that in a limited sense, the NT is one of the best attested documents from the period.

Well, then, smallaxe's point is well made.

I suppose it's not allowed for people to have different recollections of events that they see. If you were in court and the testimony of a group of witnesses meshed PERFECTLY and EXACTLY, what would your conclusion be?

In other words,
the stream of transmission that brought the NT to us -
is SO UN-RELIABLE, that we can't even trust they got the WORDS of GOD correct !

The very words of God the Father, as God the Son is baptised -
and you are happy to entrust your soul to people who can't even be trusted to get the words of God correct.

Now you're jumping on him after he made a perfectly reasonable point! There are acknowledged differences in the Gospel accounts, and what he said was, "if you were in court and the testimony of a group of witnesses meshed perfectly and exactly, what would your conclusion be?" Your conclusion obviously would be that the witnesses had gotten together after the fact and agreed a story. Here smallaxe is pointing to the fact that the differences in the story make it more reliable, not less, or at least certain basic elements of it.

You base your faith on a tradition that can TAMPER with the words of God - and you don't smell a rat?
Wow.

The abundance of manuscripts and copies should be enough to convince any fair-minded observer that the words of the Bible today convey accurately the message that the original authors wanted to tell. Whether or not that message is valid is a different argument.

But they all different!
Which authors do you trust?
Do you think the Alexandrian texts are better than the Western?
Do you follow the TR perhaps?
Which bible version do you use?

What DID God say that day at the Jordan?
What WERE the names of the 12?
What DID happen that Easter morning?

There is no way to figure it out from the MSS, or the Gospels in general - the stories are so divergent they are irreconcilable.

If you disgree, then I challenge you to produce a chronology of Easter morning that combines all the 4 Gospels into one coherent story.

But his very point is that the importance he derives is from the quality of the message delivered, not in the variant spelling of Iesuos.

It is not possible - very few Christians every even try this.
Those who do will either give up with an excuse (when they realise it's impossible) or produce a crazy story which has people running around in circles and doing totally incoherent actions.

I REALLY hope you try this - for some Christians it's the straw that breaks the camel's back, when they realise for sure and certian that the stories must be fiction.


Iasion

We have or had plenty of people here who would claim literal truth, not just for every word of the Bible, but restrict themselves to the "absolute truth" of the King James version only - but smallaxe clearly isn't one of those. At least not on the basis of the post you quoted (I don't know which thread this was on).

 

[smallaxe0217]

Greetings,

Best to have this in it's own thread, so we can keep on topic over in Darwin...



False.
There are about 5 thousand Greek MSS of the NT in TOTAL -

Not ONE of them dates to within a generation of events.
Some MIGHT date to within a generation of writing.

In fact, the early MSS consist of :
* a few tiny fragments from 2nd century
* a handful of important MSS from about c.200

Have a look at this chart :
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/Robinson-list.html

You will see how many MSS date from 200 or before - 9 in total.
Most of them being dated c.200 (e.g. the crucial P46, P66 and P75)

You repeated a false claim without checking, again.


But don't forget - according to modern NT scholars (e.g. Brown) NOT ONE SINGLE NT document was written by anyone who met any Jesus, anyway.

Of course, few Christians would be aware of that, even though most priests may be.

G.Mark - written in Rome, by unknown who never went to Judea
G.Luke, G.Matt - largely copied from G.Mark - never met any of them
G.John - very late and different story

Paul - only met Jesus in a vision of some sort

Peter 1,2 - forged later by someone else
John 1,2,3 - forged later by someone else
Jude - forged later by someone else
James - forged later by someone else

Not one NT writer actually met Jesus, or took part in the events - according to NT scholars that is.




There were TWO copies of Isaiah found -
* a very DIFFERENT version
* a MOSTLY the same version

The mostly-the-same-version is now called the famous The "Great Isaiah Scroll".
It has 1375 minor variations
and 13 significant differences.

Of course,
the faithful tell a very different story, - "word for word identical" .. "except slips of the pen",
and conspicuously ignore
the different Isaiah
the 1375 differemces
the 13 significant differences.

You didn't check the facts, again.




Indeed - but YOU claimed the Bible was the "most verifiable document" of ancient times - it's not - we have originals from long before that time, as I noted. But you exclude these, so you can say "well, apart from all the ancient works which WERE much better attested than the NT, the NT is thje best attested of all those other works, not counting those that WERE better attested.)



Sure we do - such as the Res Gestae Divi Augusti - written in stone, but of course you don't count that.

But sure,
it is probably true that in a limited sense, the NT is one of the best attested documents from the period.




In other words,
the stream of transmission that brought the NT to us -
is SO UN-RELIABLE, that we can't even trust they got the WORDS of GOD correct !

The very words of God the Father, as God the Son is baptised -
and you are happy to entrust your soul to people who can't even be trusted to get the words of God correct.

You base your faith on a tradition that can TAMPER with the words of God - and you don't smell a rat?
Wow.




Wow.
So, CHANGING the words of God in scripture proves it was true, and really from God.
What an incredible fantasy.




Nonsense,
The EVENTS of Jesus' birth is not theology - they are meant to be history - the stories do not match at all.
The Names of Jesus' disciples are not theology - they are meant to be history - but you aren't concerned that we don't even know for sure what these peoples NAMES were?
Jesus supposedly TAUGHT how to pray - but early Christians don't know anything about this - how reliable is that?

Anyone who studies these issues will see the gaping holes in the story.




Because YOU used the vague woolly religious term "verifiable" - what on earth does that mean?

You seemed to be fudging two different issues (as Christians often do) :
* the reliability of the MSS
* the truth of the contents

Christians like to pretend we have a reliable version of the early NT - when what we really have is a vast collection of all DIFFERENT MSS (yes, that is correct - every single MSS we have, baring tiny scraps, is different from every orher) from various periods, from which we reconstruct some possible originals.

We see clear and present evidence of the texts being changed over thee years. So, the MSS transmission is corrupt, which helps to argue against it being true.



But they all different!
Which authors do you trust?
Do you think the Alexandrian texts are better than the Western?
Do you follow the TR perhaps?
Which bible version do you use?

What DID God say that day at the Jordan?
What WERE the names of the 12?
What DID happen that Easter morning?

There is no way to figure it out from the MSS, or the Gospels in general - the stories are so divergent they are irreconcilable.

If you disgree, then I challenge you to produce a chronology of Easter morning that combines all the 4 Gospels into one coherent story.

It is not possible - very few Christians every even try this.
Those who do will eiether give up with an excuse (when they realise it's impossible) or produce a crazy story which has people running around in circles and doing totally incoherent actions.

I REALLY hope you try this - for some Christians it's the straw that breaks the camel's back, when they realise for sure and certian that the stories must be fiction.


Iasion

Sorry I have taken so long to reply; real life has intruded on me in many ways since I last posted. I will reply to this post now, and try to catch up on the others when I can.

Peace (for now...)

 

[smallaxe0217]

Greetings,

Best to have this in it's own thread, so we can keep on topic over in Darwin...



False.
There are about 5 thousand Greek MSS of the NT in TOTAL -

Not ONE of them dates to within a generation of events.
Some MIGHT date to within a generation of writing.

In fact, the early MSS consist of :
* a few tiny fragments from 2nd century
* a handful of important MSS from about c.200

Have a look at this chart :
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/Robinson-list.html

You will see how many MSS date from 200 or before - 9 in total.
Most of them being dated c.200 (e.g. the crucial P46, P66 and P75)

You repeated a false claim without checking, again.

Forgive me for nitpicking, but the comment I posted didn't say that all of the manuscripts dated to within a generation. It implied that some of them dated to within a generation of writing.

But don't forget - according to modern NT scholars (e.g. Brown) NOT ONE SINGLE NT document was written by anyone who met any Jesus, anyway.

Matthew and John would probably disagree with you. Besides, most of the people who write about Hitler didn't meet him either; does that make their work any less reputable?

Of course, few Christians would be aware of that, even though most priests may be.

G.Mark - written in Rome, by unknown who never went to Judea
G.Luke, G.Matt - largely copied from G.Mark - never met any of them
G.John - very late and different story

Paul - only met Jesus in a vision of some sort

Peter 1,2 - forged later by someone else
John 1,2,3 - forged later by someone else
Jude - forged later by someone else
James - forged later by someone else

Not one NT writer actually met Jesus, or took part in the events - according to NT scholars that is.

According to SOME NT scholars. Until they go into a time machine to prove that all of these are forgeries, I see no reason to not believe that the people who wrote those books are who they say claim to be. No one doubts that Confucius wrote what is attributed to him, or the Buddha, or most other ancient documents. Other than a pre-existing bent against Christianity, why are these documents seen as forged until proved real, instead of the other way around? What evidence is there of forgery?

There were TWO copies of Isaiah found -
* a very DIFFERENT version
* a MOSTLY the same version

The mostly-the-same-version is now called the famous The "Great Isaiah Scroll".
It has 1375 minor variations
and 13 significant differences.

Of course,
the faithful tell a very different story, - "word for word identical" .. "except slips of the pen",
and conspicuously ignore
the different Isaiah
the 1375 differemces
the 13 significant differences.

You didn't check the facts, again.

If you're referring to the so-called "Second Isaiah" who is so called because it mentioned Cyrus a full 150+ years before he was actually born, that again is a case of bending the facts to ones own view (in the case of those scholars). Could you please show me to a reference of these differences you speak of?

Indeed - but YOU claimed the Bible was the "most verifiable document" of ancient times - it's not - we have originals from long before that time, as I noted. But you exclude these, so you can say "well, apart from all the ancient works which WERE much better attested than the NT, the NT is thje best attested of all those other works, not counting those that WERE better attested.)

I was referring to the amount of manuscripts to compare and contrast to, such as 5000 manuscripts vs. 12 manuscripts. I was not referring to the age. If there are other comparable works better attested, please tell me what they are.

Sure we do - such as the Res Gestae Divi Augusti - written in stone, but of course you don't count that.

How can a manuscript written in stone compare to a manuscript written on paper? Of course the stone will survive over the centuries; of course the paper won't. That's why we make copies.

But sure,
it is probably true that in a limited sense, the NT is one of the best attested documents from the period.

Thank you. Was that so hard to admit?

In other words,
the stream of transmission that brought the NT to us -
is SO UN-RELIABLE, that we can't even trust they got the WORDS of GOD correct !

On what basis can we doubt them? If we doubt the method that they used to transcribe their story, then what is to stop us from doubting any historical record from any period that wasn't written in stone? Think about it. These people are preaching an incredible story, one that got many of them killed but still they proclaimed it. If they were willing to die for this message, do you think that they would let their message be so easily corrupted, or not transmit it as truly as they could? Are not the historical events of the New Testament well-documented outside of the NT itself? The census of Augustus, the existence of Jesus, the rule of Herod the Great and Pontuis Pilate, the existence of Paul, and all those other non-supernatural things? If they are reliable in that, then what reason is there to doubt their reliabilty in other matters, besides our unwillingness to believe what they said?

The very words of God the Father, as God the Son is baptised -
and you are happy to entrust your soul to people who can't even be trusted to get the words of God correct.

I don't entrust my soul to people; I entrust it to Jesus Christ. I have a question for you; if you don't believe the words are correct, then what are the correct words?

You base your faith on a tradition that can TAMPER with the words of God - and you don't smell a rat?
Wow.

Anything can be tampered with...but my faith isn't based on tradition. It is based on personal experience with God and His word, which has had a significant effect on my life. It has carried me through many a hard time, it is carrying me through the hard time I'm going through right now, and whatever props you gave me for keeping my head when I was/am raked over the coals on this forum is not due to me being a good person in myself but is due to the promises made to me in His word. Forgive me if you think this is "preaching", but you told me what my faith is based on, and I have to correct you on it.

Wow.
So, CHANGING the words of God in scripture proves it was true, and really from God.
What an incredible fantasy.

You have not posted any evidence that it was changed.

Nonsense,
The EVENTS of Jesus' birth is not theology - they are meant to be history - the stories do not match at all.

How do they not match?

The Names of Jesus' disciples are not theology - they are meant to be history - but you aren't concerned that we don't even know for sure what these peoples NAMES were?

Why do we not know for sure?

Jesus supposedly TAUGHT how to pray - but early Christians don't know anything about this - how reliable is that?

I admit that I don't know what you are referring to here...

Anyone who studies these issues will see the gaping holes in the story.


You seemed to be fudging two different issues (as Christians often do) :
* the reliability of the MSS
* the truth of the contents

I realize that they are two different issues, I have always realized it.

Christians like to pretend we have a reliable version of the early NT - when what we really have is a vast collection of all DIFFERENT MSS (yes, that is correct - every single MSS we have, baring tiny scraps, is different from every orher) from various periods, from which we reconstruct some possible originals.

Of course they are different. If they were all the same, then they would be a forgery, right?

We see clear and present evidence of the texts being changed over thee years. So, the MSS transmission is corrupt, which helps to argue against it being true.

What is this evidence, and is it a change of the facts, or of human variation?

But they all different!
Which authors do you trust?
Do you think the Alexandrian texts are better than the Western?
Do you follow the TR perhaps?
Which bible version do you use?

I use the New King James Version but that is a personal preference.

What DID God say that day at the Jordan?
What WERE the names of the 12?
What DID happen that Easter morning?

There is no way to figure it out from the MSS, or the Gospels in general - the stories are so divergent they are irreconcilable.

If you disgree, then I challenge you to produce a chronology of Easter morning that combines all the 4 Gospels into one coherent story.

It is not possible - very few Christians every even try this.
Those who do will eiether give up with an excuse (when they realise it's impossible) or produce a crazy story which has people running around in circles and doing totally incoherent actions.

I REALLY hope you try this - for some Christians it's the straw that breaks the camel's back, when they realise for sure and certian that the stories must be fiction.


Iasion

[/QUOTE]

I will attempt your challenge. I have to stop here due to the time and location (someone is waiting for me to come off the computer) but I will attempt it.

 

[Iasion]

Greetings Medicine Woman,

M*W: Thank you for your excellent post!

Thanks for your kind words,
I appreciate it

Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

Sorry I have taken so long to reply; real life has intruded on me in many ways since I last posted. I will reply to this post now, and try to catch up on the others when I can.

No worries,
there are no deadlines here

It implied that some of them dated to within a generation of writing.

Well, actually, your statement directly stated :
"there are five thousand Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament, dating to within a generation of the actual writings".
which clearly means what I said - there is no "some" there at all.

But anyway,
exactly WHICH MSS(s) do you claim is from a generation of the actual writings?
When was it written?
When is the MSS dated?
Please use years, not the vague "generation."

Matthew and John would probably disagree with you.

If they existed,
if we had any writings from them,
MAYBE they would have.

But,
according to scholars -
G.Matthew was NOT written by any "Matthew" who met any Jesus.
Same with G.John - not written by anyone who met any Jesus.

The epistles of John were forged by someonw else, who shows no knowledge of a historical Jesus.
Same with Peter, Jude, and James.

Let's consider James -

Now James was allegedly the BROTHER of Jesus,
so
we would expect his letter to be chock-full of personal details about Jesus.

Well,
guess what?

The letter of James only even MENTIONS the name "Jesus" twice in the whole letter.

It has NO personal details at all. NOT one shred of historical information about Jesus can be found in the letter allegedly from a member of his FAMILY !

The person who wrote the letter of James had OBVIOUSLY never even HEARD of a hisyorical Jesus.
Let examine the letter to see what I mean -

The ONLY 2 places to use the name Jesus are here :

1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are in the Dispersion: Greetings.

The introduction of the letter, mentions he is a "servant" of God and of Lord Jesus Christ (ie. a typical faithful phrase invoking their highest names) - totally FAILS to mention he is brother to Jesus.

2:1 My brothers, don't hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory with partiality.

Another faithful phrase telling us nothing about Jesus. No mention James is his brother.


What DON'T we see in James :

NO mention of Jesus' family at all - NO Mary or Joseph or siblings.
NO mention of the birth stories - NO Bethlehem, Nazareth, Magi, Herod, the flight...
NO mention of teachings Jesus - NO sermon, Lord's prayer, food regulations
NO mention of miracles - NO Lazarus, feeding the multitude, healing the sick...
NO mention of any Gospel event - NO Teaching at the Temple, Temple Cleansing, Triumphal Entry, Temptation, Baptism in Jordan etc, etc...
NO mention of the trial of Jesus - NO Pilate, Sanhedrin, Judas etc...
NO mention of the empty tomb, the crucifixion, the resurrection !!! hello?

I can not find a SINGLE PIECE of information about Jesus in the whole epistle of James.

From a person who was supposedly in Jesus' very family and probably would have experienced many of these events if they had really happened.


Even when expected

Even worse, if you do read James, there are many places where you would expect him to mention Jesus or his teaching -

Chapter 1 talks about resisting temptation - NO mention of the temptation of Jesus !

Chapter 2 starts like this in some versions - "do you .. really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ?" (a different translation of the phrase which in the Greek goes something like this: "do not with partiality believe in Jesus Christ the glorious").

Here is James trying to convince them to believe in Jesus Christ, and he totally fails to even mention he knew Jesus, let alone was his brother - instead all he gives to try and prove Jesus is some preaching about the poor and the rich WITHOUT mentioning anything Jesus said about the poor.

James quotes "Love Thy Neighbour as Thyself" - but NOT from Jesus, just "scripture".

James preaches about adultery - NO mention of Jesus' teachings.

James argues that faith without works is useless - when he provides examples, it's from the OT - Abraham, Rahab - NO mention of Jesus.

James reminds people not to curse or speak evil - NO mention of Jesus' teachings on that.

James preaches about suffering and patience - NO mention of Jesus as example, just Job and the prophets.

James talks about the church elders bringing healing and forgiving sins - NO mention of Jesus doing that.

James even invokes Elijah who was a "human being like us" - NO mention of Jesus !


James never knew any Jesus

In dozens of places, James preaches something that CRIES out for a mention of Jesus or his teachings - but it looks like James has never even HEARD of Jesus of Nazareth - just the risen Christ, a spiritual being.

Note that James uses the phrase "my brothers (and sisters)" DOZENS of times - NOT the slightest hint that HE is the brother of Jesus anywhere in the letter.


History

Besides, most of the people who write about Hitler didn't meet him either; does that make their work any less reputable?

Oh Please !
We have VAST evidence of Hitler.

We have NO historical evidence of Jesus or the Gospel events -
* no eye-witnesses
* no contemporary accounts
* no coins, statues, images
* no archeology
NOTHING to actually support Jesus historical' existance.

According to SOME NT scholars. Until they go into a time machine to prove that all of these are forgeries, I see no reason to not believe that the people who wrote those books are who they say claim to be.

It is the consensus of modern scholars.
Christian believers are the last to know.

No one doubts that Confucius wrote what is attributed to him, or the Buddha, or most other ancient documents.

Wrong.
Some scholars doubt Kung Fu Tze existed (Confucius.)
Some scholars doubt Buddha existed.


NT forgery

Other than a pre-existing bent against Christianity, why are these documents seen as forged until proved real, instead of the other way around? What evidence is there of forgery?

The evidence is clear and obvious -
See earlychristianwritings.com.
Or Raymond Brown or The New Jerome commentary - any good modern work will present the arguments.
Note that these scholarly works never use the word "forgery".
No - they use words like "pseudo-epigraph" and "falsely attributed".

You can start your research here:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

That site is the premier place for such research - it is NOT my fave weirdo site - it is THE most respected such site on the web - check it out and you will find all the evidence that shows these works were forgeries (but not using that word - it's too controversial.)


Isaiah

If you're referring to the so-called "Second Isaiah" who is so called because it mentioned Cyrus a full 150+ years before he was actually born, that again is a case of bending the facts to ones own view (in the case of those scholars). Could you please show me to a reference of these differences you speak of?

Not sure about the term "Second Isaiah".
But,
several MSS of Isaiah were found in the DSS -
* The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa(a))
* Other fragments of a different Isaiah (4QIsa(a), 4QIsa(b) etc.)

They show DIFFERENT texts.
But apologists never seem to know this.
Even the famous Great Isaiah Scroll - which apologists say is EXACTLY the same,
actually has 1375 differences, 13 significant.

Here is a detailed page on the Great Isiaah scroll:
http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qumdir.htm

There are many sites discussing the DSS Isaiah fragments, here is one :
http://faculty.bbc.edu/ggromacki/deadseascrolls/bible.htm


NT MSS

I was referring to the amount of manuscripts to compare and contrast to, such as 5000 manuscripts vs. 12 manuscripts. I was not referring to the age. If there are other comparable works better attested, please tell me what they are.

Why?
Who cares IF we even had the original?
It proves nothing, as we have agreed.

I DID cite other works that ARE better attested - you excluded them.

Again, you seem to think the NUMBER of MSS means something?
Why?
We have MILLIONS of copies of the Book of Mormon - so what?

5000 MSS - all different, many tampered with, all long after the events.

How can a manuscript written in stone compare to a manuscript written on paper? Of course the stone will survive over the centuries; of course the paper won't. That's why we make copies.

Along with the many stone inscriptions, there are also ancient works on papyrus MSS for which we still have the ORIGINAL - such as religious works recovered from egyptian tombs - papyrus MSS for which we have the EXACT original.

Thus your claim that the NT is the "most verifiable" ancient document is wrong.

What is the point of excluding all the many writings which ARE better attested?
Just so you can say :
"excluding all the many works which ARE better attested,
the NT is the best attested work,
NOT counting those works which ARE better attested"
What is the point?

Thank you. Was that so hard to admit?

What?
Admit that if you EXCLUDE all the works which ARE better attested than the NT,
then the NT is the best attested work,
not counting all those works which ARE better attested.

Sure,
I am happy to admit that - so what?
Why won't you admit there are many works which ARE better attested?
And what is the point?
It means nothing, as I thought we agreed.
Does the MILLIONS of exact copies of the Book of Mormon prove anything?


NT mythology tampered with

On what basis can we doubt them?

On the overwhelming evidence that they have been TAMPERED with for doctrinal reasons.

then what is to stop us from doubting any historical record from any period that wasn't written in stone?

ALL ancient writings are evaluated and judged, scholars do NOT just accept any ancient writing as true.
That is how we consider the Res Gestae authentic history,
and the Golden Ass religious mythology.

Just like the NT - religious mythology, not supported by history.


To Die for One's Belief

Think about it. These people are preaching an incredible story, one that got many of them killed but still they proclaimed it. If they were willing to die for this message, do you think that they would let their message be so easily corrupted, or not transmit it as truly as they could?

Perhaps YOU should think about it -

Suicide bombers DIE for their BELIEFS - does that make them right?
The Heaven's Gate cult died for their beliefs - does that make them right?
Jim Jones cult died for their beliefs - does that make them right?

People die for false beliefs all the time - so what?

Furthermore,
there is NO evidence that Christians died rather than recant - NONE.
It's all LEGENDS from much later - like the whole Christian myth - stories from long after the alleged events.


Historical Evidence

Are not the historical events of the New Testament well-documented outside of the NT itself?

No,
Historical events are included in the NT - just like, say, James Bond stories includes real events and people.

The census of Augustus,

The NT version of the story does NOT match history.

the existence of Jesus,

There is no hard evidence for Jesus at all, outside the NT.
Just later repeats of Christian beliefs.
We could do a new thread on this point.

the rule of Herod the Great and Pontuis Pilate,

So?
Historical events, included in the story.

the existence of Paul,

There is no evidence for Paul at all, outside the NT.

If they are reliable in that, then what reason is there to doubt their reliabilty in other matters, besides our unwillingness to believe what they said?

I don't think you grasp the issue.
Many books include real events among the fiction.
The presence of some real events does not make a James Bond book true.
Nor does it make 2000 year old myths true.

I don't entrust my soul to people; I entrust it to Jesus Christ.

And everything you believe about JC comes from corrupt documents, tampered with by men.

I have a question for you; if you don't believe the words are correct, then what are the correct words?

Nice attempt to avoid the issue.
The point is - the scribes CHANGED the NT - for obvious doctrinal reasons.
NONE of the words are correct - it obviously never happened.

Do YOU REALLY believe that God spoke outloud on that day?
What did he say?


Faith

Anything can be tampered with...but my faith isn't based on tradition. It is based on personal experience with God and His word, which has had a significant effect on my life. It has carried me through many a hard time, it is carrying me through the hard time I'm going through right now, and whatever props you gave me for keeping my head when I was/am raked over the coals on this forum is not due to me being a good person in myself but is due to the promises made to me in His word. Forgive me if you think this is "preaching", but you told me what my faith is based on, and I have to correct you on it

Hey
Don't get me wrong.
If your faith makes you a better man, if it helps you be good to others, if it gives you strength - GREAT
Nothing wrong with that.
If your faith is what makes you polite and considerate - then it is working fine in my view.

If you say :
"I believe in Christ, I believe we should be decent and kind to other humans"
I will agree and support you - I too believe in the Iesous Christos - our immortal soul (Christ in you, the hope of "Doxa'), crucified to the cross of the physical body, pinned to matter by desire.

Consider what Clement said:
Stromata 2,20 : ' "For the minds of those even who are deemed grave, pleasure makes waxen," according to Plato; since "each pleasure and pain nails to the body the soul" of the man, that does not sever and crucify himself from the passions. '
...
For if you would loose, and withdraw, and separate (for this is what the cross means) your soul from the delight and pleasure that is in this life, you will possess it, found and resting in the looked-for hope '

Here we see "the cross" and "crucify" as spiritual allegories - not historical events.


If you make CLAIMS about the NT that can be checked, you must expect to be challenged.


NT changes

You have not posted any evidence that it was changed.

Well, the evidence is well known and readily available, some links below. Here is the evidence for this specific change :

The original reading :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou are my son, this day have I begotten thee"
is found in :

* Codex Bezae
* various other minor MSS
* Justin (Dial., 88),
* Clement of Alexandria (Paed., I, 25, 2),
* Origen (Comm. on John),
* Methodius (Symp. 9),
* Lactantius (Div. Inst. IV, 15),
* Augustine (Enchiridion 49),
* Faustus,
* Tyconius,
* Hilary,
* Juvencus.
* Gospel According to the Hebrews,
* Gospel According to the Ebionites (as qtd. by Epiphanius),
* Didascalia (93:26),
* Martyrdom of Peter and Paul (par 1)
* The Acts of Peter and Paul (par 29)

As Bart Ehrman notes, "among sources of the second and third centuries, it is virtually the only reading to be found; down to the sixth century it occurs in witnesses as far flung as Asia Minor, Palestine, Alexandria, North Africa, Rome, Gaul, and Spain" (p 63).

But,
as debate raged about Christ in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, it was seen as problematic, and was eventually CHANGED to the modern version.

This is well known to NT scholars,
along with the many other changes.

You can see details of the CHANGES to the NT here:
http://members.aol.com/PS418/manuscript.html

And an excellent article by Ehrman:
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/ehrman-pres.html

Which also show just why the King James version is considered one of the WORST translations available.

How do [the birth stories] not match?

Hmmm..
Have you ever READ them?
G.Mark has no birth stories, the other Gospels tell different stories.

Why don't you try and reconcile the birth stories into ONE coherent account?
It cannot be done.

Why do we not know [the names of the 12] for sure?

Because different MSS and different Gospels give DIFFERENT names.

I admit that I don't know what you are referring to here...

Jesus allegedly taught the Lord's Prayer to the disciples.
(but different MSS have many differences in this prayer.)

Yet, Paul says " we do not know how to pray" ?
Obviously he had never heard about the Lord's Prayer.

Same with all the early epistles -
no mention of historical Jesus,
no mention of miracles,
no mention of Gospel events,
no mention of Jesus teaching.

Of course they are different. If they were all the same, then they would be a forgery, right?

False.
Every MSS is different - we cannot tell what the original was for sure.

What is this evidence, and is it a change of the facts, or of human variation?

The evidence for variation in what the humans said the facts were is huge.
This site I menrtioned gives some of them :
http://members.aol.com/PS418/manuscript.html

You could also read Ehrman's work -
"The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture"
which gives a scholarly detailed look at 4 of these issues
(including the words of god at the baptism.)

Let me ask you again:
the WORDS of GOD were changed by Christian scribes -
does that sound like a verifiable historical event to you?

I use the New King James Version but that is a personal preference.

Probably the worst translation available (unless you count the NIV.)

I will attempt your challenge (combined chronology of 1st Easter morning)

Great

Here are some questions to bear in mind as you build this combined chronology :

* What time did the women visit the tomb?
* Who were the women?
* What was their purpose?
* Was the tomb open when they arrived?
* Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
* Where were these messengers situated?
* What did the messenger(s) say?
* Did the women tell what happened?
* When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
* When did Mary first see Jesus?
* Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
* After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
* Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
* Did the disciples believe the two men?
* What happened at the appearance?
* Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
* Where did the ascension take place?

If you can answer those questions coherently,
I will become a believer.


Iasion

 

[Silas]

"there are five thousand Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament, dating to within a generation of the actual writings".
which clearly means what I said - there is no "some" there at all.

But anyway,
exactly WHICH MSS(s) do you claim is from a generation of the actual writings?
When was it written?
When is the MSS dated?
Please use years, not the vague "generation."

Earliest NT document is a fragment of the Gospel of John dated 125 CE. That's actually remarkably close to original composition date for any ancient document.

Iasion, you have a tendency to overemphasise the words "forge" and "forged" which gives your post a polemical air that detracts from any argument you may be making (as well as the finger-poking emphasis of your stresses).

The epistles of John were forged by someone else, who shows no knowledge of a historical Jesus.
Same with Peter, Jude, and James.

The epistles of John were written by somebody. Scholastic opinion accepts that John the epistoler is the same as John the Divine (who wrote Revelation). Only the other day I passed a church dedicated to "St John the Evangelist" - therefore a church institution which overtly distinguishes the author of the Gospel from the Apostle. So what forgery is involved?

We have NO historical evidence of Jesus or the Gospel events -
* no eye-witnesses
* no contemporary accounts
* no coins, statues, images
* no archeology
NOTHING to actually support Jesus historical' existance.

Well, we don't have that kind of evidence for lots of people. For the historian Josephus, for example, of whose history we have no manuscripts older than the 8th Century or so I believe. In fact Jesus-Era History is full of people regarded as completely historical figures who have no more backing than a mention in the histories of Tacitus, Cassius Dio or Suetonius, all written at least a century later.

Some scholars doubt Kung Fu Tze existed (Confucius.)
Some scholars doubt Buddha existed.

Well, here we have it. You are quite fond of quoting the scholarly consensus on the origin of NT writings, but then you dogmatically follow the "there was no such person as Jesus" line as if that was also the scholarly consensus, when it is nothing of the kind.

NT forgery



The evidence is clear and obvious -
See earlychristianwritings.com.
Or Raymond Brown or The New Jerome commentary - any good modern work will present the arguments.
Note that these scholarly works never use the word "forgery".
No - they use words like "pseudo-epigraph" and "falsely attributed".

If the scholars don't use the word "forgery", why do you? Even fully paid up Christians can accept a concept like "pious fraud", but by stating "forgery" over and over again, you're imputing something rather more deliberate and criminal.

Isaiah

If you're referring to the so-called "Second Isaiah" who is so called because it mentioned Cyrus a full 150+ years before he was actually born, that again is a case of bending the facts to ones own view (in the case of those scholars). Could you please show me to a reference of these differences you speak of?

Not sure about the term "Second Isaiah".
But,
several MSS of Isaiah were found in the DSS -
* The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa(a))
* Other fragments of a different Isaiah (4QIsa(a), 4QIsa(b) etc.)

They show DIFFERENT texts.
But apologists never seem to know this.
Even the famous Great Isaiah Scroll - which apologists say is EXACTLY the same,
actually has 1375 differences, 13 significant.

Here is a detailed page on the Great Isiaah scroll:
http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qumdir.htm

There are many sites discussing the DSS Isaiah fragments, here is one :
http://faculty.bbc.edu/ggromacki/deadseascrolls/bible.htm

smallaxe0217, first: no, the Second Isaiah is not "twisting the facts to suit theory", Chapters 40-55 were definitely not written by the same person or in the same period as the author of Chapters 1-35. There's even evidence for this in the very fact that Chapters 36-39 are simply an (slightly misquoted) extract from 2 Kings. Evidently this formed a historical appendix to the writings as they then existed. The Second Isaiah (who certainly makes no claim to being Isaiah himself) was such a great poetic writer of the Post-Exilic period, that his masterpiece was incorporated into one of the great prophetic books. A Third Isaiah is considered to have written Chapters 56-66 some time later still.

NT mythology tampered with

then what is to stop us from doubting any historical record from any period that wasn't written in stone?

ALL ancient writings are evaluated and judged, scholars do NOT just accept any ancient writing as true.

By which you imply that scholars are agreed that all NT writing is false. But that is not the case, and it is somewhat invidious for you to imply that it is. The historicity of Jesus is not dismissed out of hand simply because we only have four accounts of his life written inside a generation, and the personal testimony of a writer who knew Jesus's closest associates twenty years or so after his death.

That is how we consider the Res Gestae authentic history,
and the Golden Ass religious mythology.

Just like the NT - religious mythology, not supported by history.

I've no idea what those things are. But if you want to talk about religious mythology, then I think the scholastic position on the historicity of Genesis and the Pentateuch is substantially different from the position on the historicity of the Gospels. If any of the myths of Genesis are actually founded in fact is certainly a bone of contention, some insisting that all myth is necessarily fictional, and others stating that all myth and mythological heroes are based on some kind of reality, even if we do not even know the names of the original people. But the NT writings about Jesus are a totally different order. Nobody in the scholastic world would deny that the historicity of any individual event is difficult to justify, but again few would deny that there was a man name Jesus and that he was a Galilean, that he preached, that he caused trouble in the Temple of Jerusalem and that he was condemned by the Roman government and executed. (An extract from 8 items scholar E.P. Sanders has stated is the very minimum we can accept as fact about Jesus, cited in Graham Stanton's Gospel Truth?.)

The point is - the scribes CHANGED the NT - for obvious doctrinal reasons.
NONE of the words are correct - it obviously never happened.

The point is, the scribes didn't change all of the NT, just small items here and there. And this isn't a plea to accept the Virgin Birth or the different accounts of Jesus's nativity, which are patently mythological. But just because some stuff has definitely been changed, and all the accounts differ from being from different perspectives, does not give you the right to claim (on no other evidence) that none of the words are correct and that none of the events described happened at all.

Why don't you try and reconcile the birth stories into ONE coherent account?
It cannot be done.

Heh heh. This is done millions of times around the world every Christmas in primary schools, and called "The Nativity Scene"!

It's perfectly possible to reconcile the four Gospels into a single account. This was done, in fact, in ancient times (4th Century?) by someone called Tatian, who produced a four-in-one Gospel called the Diatessaron. There was certainly a consideration for replacing the canon Gospels with this Diatessaron in the early Church (as there was with Marcion's New Testament, which consisted of Luke & Acts plus the ten letters directly attributable to Paul, but Marcion's view lost out and he was regarded as heretical).

In fact, of course, there is a Diatessaron in the Bible - it's called the Pentateuch. This is a single harmonised story derived from four distinct documents. And it has been shown that it's very far from a paraphrase of different tales, but the literal words in each document have been used at each point, exactly like Tatian's work.

Here are some questions to bear in mind as you build this combined chronology :

* What time did the women visit the tomb?
* Who were the women?
* What was their purpose?
* Was the tomb open when they arrived?
* Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
* Where were these messengers situated?
* What did the messenger(s) say?
* Did the women tell what happened?
* When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
* When did Mary first see Jesus?
* Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
* After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
* Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
* Did the disciples believe the two men?
* What happened at the appearance?
* Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
* Where did the ascension take place?

If you can answer those questions coherently,
I will become a believer.


Iasion

But why should you? The church has operated for nearly two thousand years on the assumption that there's no difficulty harmonising the four stories (even when John tells a notably different story to the other three, with different days etc). Anybody's ability to coherently answer your questions shouldn't make the remotest difference to your belief, as it doesn't mine.