# A graphic on the reliability of the New Testament....



## jmharris23 (Apr 25, 2012)

http://visualunit.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/nt_reliability1.jpg


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2012)

It is reliable as to what was once written was written again in a short amount of time. The copies of copies are very similar to the works before them despite the differences in translation and additions. 
That is no big secret.
Where the mystery lies is in the contents of those writings. No matter how quickly you copy fiction and make many accurate copies of it later, it does not make the fiction true.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> It is reliable as to what was once written was written again in a short amount of time. The copies of copies are very similar to the works before them despite the differences in translation and additions.
> That is no big secret.
> Where the mystery lies is in the contents of those writings. No matter how quickly you copy fiction and make many accurate copies of it later, it does not make the fiction true.



Oh how quickly the argument changes.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Oh how quickly the argument changes.



Textual reliability and historical reliability are two different things.
There is no argument.

What "reliability" are we talking about here when we say the reliability of the NT?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Textual reliability and historical reliability are two different things.
> There is no argument.
> 
> What "reliability" are we talking about here when we say the reliability of the NT?



The reliability of what was originally written, something that gets argued in this forum all the time.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> The reliability of what was originally written, something that gets argued in this forum all the time.



The reliability of historical/factual accuracy of what was originally written absolutely gets argued.

The reliability of the actual text itself is widely known. Even though there were additions and changes made, as a whole it is a high percentage of reliability as far as the text is concerned.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The reliability of historical/factual accuracy of what was originally written absolutely gets argued.
> 
> The reliability of the actual text itself is widely known. Even though there were additions and changes made, as a whole it is a high percentage of reliability as far as the text is concerned.



This I get. What I don't get is why the historical/factual accuracy of the other works in this list are not nearly as debated, if at all?


----------



## Four (Apr 25, 2012)

This info-graph needs some labels, or explanation.

I get that they're measuring original vs. earliest existing copy... that's interesting, but doesn't seem to have to do anything with reliability.

Also, what's the second number next to it? It's not labeled or anything...

Also, there are no sources... all in all it's pretty shady.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 25, 2012)

Four said:


> Also, what's the second number next to it? It's not labeled or anything...



The number of existing copies.


----------



## Four (Apr 25, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> The number of existing copies.



I would think there are more than 24,000 copies of the NT...


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 25, 2012)

Four said:


> I would think there are more than 24,000 copies of the NT...



I'm guessing they mean the "earliest existing copies"


----------



## Four (Apr 25, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I'm guessing they mean the "earliest existing copies"



How did you know that? is there a  website that went along with this picture? Without explanation / sources this picture is pretty meaningless for anything besides propaganda..


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The reliability of the actual text itself is widely known. Even though there were additions and changes made, as a whole it is a high percentage of reliability as far as the text is concerned.



Wow....you're the first person on here accept that as fact.  Seems like most doubters try to push that fact all the time.  In fact, it's how we got the Book of Mormon.



Four said:


> This info-graph needs some labels, or explanation.
> 
> I get that they're measuring original vs. earliest existing copy... that's interesting, but doesn't seem to have to do anything with reliability.
> 
> ...



I have to agree with you Four.  I had a tough time reading the picture as well.  Not sure exactly what it is saying other than there being 40-70 years between the actual time it was written and the earliest manuscripts we've got.


----------



## Four (Apr 25, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> I have to agree with you Four.  I had a tough time reading the picture as well.  Not sure exactly what it is saying other than there being 40-70 years between the actual time it was written and the earliest manuscripts we've got.



Even the 40-70 year thing, is that 40-70 years between any of the original scripture were written down? or when the NT was actually compiled and put together in one tomb?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 25, 2012)

Four said:


> How did you know that? is there a  website that went along with this picture? Without explanation / sources this picture is pretty meaningless for anything besides propaganda..



What number are you asking about exactly? Which one is not labeled?


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 25, 2012)

Four said:


> Even the 40-70 year thing, is that 40-70 years between any of the original scripture were written down? or when the NT was actually compiled and put together in one tomb?



40-70 years after the original scripture.  Scholars believe that Revelation was written in the early to mid 90s AD.

The earliest manuscripts that have been found date to the middle of the 2nd Century...around 150 AD.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> This I get. What I don't get is why the historical/factual accuracy of the other works in this list are not nearly as debated, if at all?



Some are questioned to this day (Homer for example).  They are literature with some being poems and stories with some history in them. All of the works are checked for historical accuracy and then accepted for what is or is not accurate.

The Bible is no different. Real places with real people intertwined with real events but it also includes people,places and events that have never been found to have existed.

None of those other books took 1400 years to assemble as a whole. The NT writings are a combination of anonymous authors that are mostly unknown in history. Their work was assembled to fit a book, not written together as a book.


----------



## Michael F. Gray (Apr 25, 2012)

THE WORD OF GOD isn't comparable to anything you have listed.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2012)

Michael F. Gray said:


> THE WORD OF GOD isn't comparable to anything you have listed.



Yeah,yeah,yeah, we know.......


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 25, 2012)

Da' gum.  Heroduts is on that list.  Didn't we just talk about this in another thread?


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 25, 2012)

My guess on why these other works are not contested more is that most of them were writing observations of life and philosophy,  or writing fiction, while the Bible and it's supporters claim it's fact.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 25, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> My guess on why these other works are not contested more is that most of them were writing observations of life and philosophy,  or writing fiction, while the Bible and it's supporters claim it's fact.



Herodotus was claiming fact with much of his stuff too.  We teach his claims to history students.


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 25, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Herodotus was claiming fact with much of his stuff too.  We teach his claims to history students.



Did he claim to know the secret of eternal life?  Or was he just recording history as he knew it?  I ask because I do not know much about him.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 25, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> Did he claim to know the secret of eternal life?  Or was he just recording history as he knew it?  I ask because I do not know much about him.



Nah, just history.  He mixed a little fantasy in with it.  We take him at his word, though.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Herodotus was claiming fact with much of his stuff too.  We teach his claims to history students.



Only the claims, that through research, have been found to be historically accurate.


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 25, 2012)

Yeah, I imagine most of the stuff of that time had fantasy woven in.  I do think the Bible polarizes people because it claims to be the only way to heaven, or after-life.  Folks might feel threatened by that, and tend to argue the point.  I don't know anyone that feels threatened by an account of Persian politics or Homer's Iliad.  Bored to tears maybe, but not threatened.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 25, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> I don't know anyone that feels threatened by an account of Persian politics or Homer's Iliad.  Bored to tears maybe, but not threatened.



They made a pretty good movie out of the Odyssey:


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Only the claims, that through research, have been found to be historically accurate.



They didn't find the arrowheads and spear heads till recently.  The only evidence for many years wasa small monument, and Herodotus.  But, we believed him.

This is my fault....going down this path again.....


----------



## bullethead (Apr 25, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> They didn't find the arrowheads and spear heads till recently.  The only evidence for many years wasa small monument, and Herodotus.  But, we believed him.
> 
> This is my fault....going down this path again.....



Please do more research.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Please do more research.



Aw heck, man.  I'm just shooting from the hip things I remember from the History channel.

I'm open to correction, when did they discover the arrowheads and spearheads?  What other evidence existed?  You brought up another historian once who actually wrote about it 500 years later.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 26, 2012)

Taken from various sources that I quickly found....

The main source for the Greco-Persian Wars is the Greek historian Herodotus. Herodotus, who has been called the 'Father of History', was born in 484 BC in Halicarnassus, Asia Minor (then under Persian overlordship). He wrote his 'Enquiries' (Greek—Historia; English—(The) Histories) around 440–420 BC, trying to trace the origins of the Greco-Persian Wars, which would still have been relatively recent history (the wars finally ending in 450 BC). Herodotus's approach was entirely novel, and at least in Western society, he does seem to have invented 'history' as we know it. As Holland has it: "For the first time, a chronicler set himself to trace the origins of a conflict not to a past so remote so as to be utterly fabulous, nor to the whims and wishes of some god, nor to a people's claim to manifest destiny, but rather explanations he could verify personally."


"Some subsequent ancient historians, despite following in his footsteps, criticised Herodotus, starting with Thucydides. Nevertheless, Thucydides chose to begin his history where Herodotus left off (at the Siege of Sestos), and therefore evidently felt that Herodotus's history was accurate enough not to need re-writing or correcting. Plutarch criticised Herodotus in his essay "On The Malignity of Herodotus", describing Herodotus as "Philobarbaros" (barbarian-lover), for not being pro-Greek enough, which suggests that Herodotus might actually have done a reasonable job of being even-handed. A negative view of Herodotus was passed on to Renaissance Europe, though he remained well read. However, since the 19th century his reputation has been dramatically rehabilitated by archaeological finds which have repeatedly confirmed his version of events. The prevailing modern view is that Herodotus generally did a remarkable job in his Historia, but that some of his specific details (particularly troop numbers and dates) should be viewed with skepticism. "

"The Sicilian historian Diodorus Siculus, writing in the 1st century BC in his Bibliotheca Historica, also provides an account of the Greco-Persian wars, partially derived from the earlier Greek historian Ephorus. This account is fairly consistent with Herodotus's. The Greco-Persian wars are also described in less detail by a number of other ancient historians including Plutarch, Ctesias of Cnidus, and are referred to by other authors, such as the playwright Aeschylus. Archaeological evidence, such as the Serpent Column, also supports some of Herodotus's specific claims."

"When the body of Leonidas was recovered by the Persians, Xerxes, in a rage against Leonidas, ordered that the head be cut off and the body crucified. Herodotus observes that this was very uncommon for the Persians, as they had the habit of treating "valiant warriors" with great honor (the example of Pytheas, captured off Skiathos before the Battle of Artemisium strengthens this suggestion). However, Xerxes was known for his rage, for instance, when he had the Hellespont whipped because it would not obey him. After the Persians' departure, the Allies collected their dead and buried them on the hill. After the Persian invasion ended, a stone lion was erected at Thermopylae to commemorate Leonidas. A full forty years after the battle, Leonidas' bones were returned to Sparta where he was buried again with full honors; funeral games were held every year in his memory."


----------



## bullethead (Apr 26, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Aw heck, man.  I'm just shooting from the hip things I remember from the History channel.
> 
> I'm open to correction, when did they discover the arrowheads and spearheads?  What other evidence existed?  You brought up another historian once who actually wrote about it 500 years later.



When did they LOOK for the arrowheads and spearheads? Was it really necessary to go there the day after and look for such things? They collected their dead after the battle so in my opinion, they were pretty sure the battle took place. They did not need arrowheads and spearheads to confirm what they already knew from first person eyewitness accounts that were actually involved in the events. And they had them from both sides of the battle.

When someone finally decided to find some archaeological evidence by uncovering spears and arrowheads(because the bodies were gotten after the battle) they actually found them....which only confirms what has been said and written! I am not sure why bringing up that they found those weapons many years later is a bad thing.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 26, 2012)

Bullet, what did you write that contradicts anything I said?

Diodorus was from the 1st century B.C.  Some 400 years after the war.

The serpent column is the small monument I mentioned.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> When someone finally decided to find some archaeological evidence by uncovering spears and arrowheads(because the bodies were gotten after the battle) they actually found them....which only confirms what has been said and written! I am not sure why bringing up that they found those weapons many years later is a bad thing.



My point was that Herodotus was believed, in a general sense, before the evidence was discovered.

I am sure you are aware of monuments, churches, etc. from the early centuries based on Chritian history.  This is evidence that a man existed who started a movement.  Then, we have the text. And Josephus.  But still, on this board, there are those who think it is all a fantasy, the man never existed.

It's not good or bad that the evidence was found later.  The point is that nobody doubted that the battle ever happened.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 26, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> My point was that Herodotus was believed, in a general sense, before the evidence was discovered.
> 
> I am sure you are aware of monuments, churches, etc. from the early centuries based on Chritian history.  This is evidence that a man existed who started a movement.  Then, we have the text. And Josephus.  But still, on this board, there are those who think it is all a fantasy, the man never existed.
> 
> It's not good or bad that the evidence was found later.  The point is that nobody doubted that the battle ever happened.



Monuments and Churches in EVERY religion were built. They are all based of beliefs more than evidence. From the Myans to Hindus, Buddhists to Catholics, Native Americans to Aborigines and every religion you can think of and a thousand more you can't.......those things were built and worshiped. If that is the evidence you nedd then you should believe 1000% in the Greek and Roman Gods. You should believe in Buddha.
What they all lack that historical fact does not is EVIDENCE.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Monuments and Churches in EVERY religion were built. They are all based of beliefs more than evidence. From the Myans to Hindus, Buddhists to Catholics, Native Americans to Aborigines and every religion you can think of and a thousand more you can't.......those things were built and worshiped. If that is the evidence you nedd then you should believe 1000% in the Greek and Roman Gods. You should believe in Buddha.
> What they all lack that historical fact does not is EVIDENCE.



Not the direction I am going.  I have no doubt that those who founded the various religions existed.  I am not a muslim, but I do not doubt that Mohammed existed.

My point was not the divinity of the man, but the historcal fact of his existence.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 26, 2012)

When I shoot a turkey the dead bird and fine meal afterwards suffices the critics. I do not have to immediately dig through the dirt at the kill site to prove I shot the bird. NOW!!!!! If the Game Commission doubts me, I  can certainly take them to the spot of the kill and let them go crazy with their metal detector and look for 400-500 little tungsten pellets. Each account will back up the other.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 26, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Not the direction I am going.  I have no doubt that those who founded the various religions existed.  I am not a muslim, but I do not doubt that Mohammed existed.
> 
> My point was not the divinity of the man, but the historcal fact of his existence.



Where is the historical fact that you are talking about? Your not going in that direction because it takes what you are saying and nullifies it.

Zeus, Poseidon, Mars, Apollo, Hades, all have the criteria for you to believe.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> When I shoot a turkey the dead bird and fine meal afterwards suffices the critics. I do not have to immediately dig through the dirt at the kill site to prove I shot the bird. NOW!!!!! If the Game Commission doubts me, I  can certainly take them to the spot of the kill and let them go crazy with their metal detector and look for 400-500 little tungsten pellets. Each account will back up the other.



Did you read my last post?  I cannot prove to you that God exists.  That requires faith.  But, I think in your (general sense) zeal to disprove the Bible, you overlook the basic fact that the Bible, from a historical perspective, has just as much veracity as many other historical claims.

Greek gods, the temples indicate the people at the time believed in them.  Jesus was actual person whose life and actions were recorded.  Does that prove he is God's son, no.  Does it add validity to his existence, absolutely!


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Where is the historical fact that you are talking about?.



I said it in the post.  Jesus' existence as a person.  You can decide on your own about the divinity.  That's between you and God, and really not my business.



bullethead said:


> Your not going in that direction because it takes what you are saying and nullifies it.?.



Nowhere on this forum have I ever tried to prove Jesus' divinity.  I find it to be an exercise in futility, and probably designed that way if faith is the objective.  I'm not going that direction because it is a huge waste of all our time.  I would rather pick a fight with the Christians about gay folks.




bullethead said:


> Zeus, Poseidon, Mars, Apollo, Hades, all have the criteria for you to believe.



Were they people?  Did their contemporaries record conversations?  Did those who worshipped them recognize that they were people?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 26, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I said it in the post.  Jesus' existence as a person.  You can decide on your own about the divinity.  That's between you and God, and really not my business.


I am not convinced that there is enough in the NT to actually prove Jesus was real. In my mind I think either he or someone like him existed, but not in the ways described there. There is very very very little evidence outside of the NT and most of those (Joseph Flavius and the likes) are argued to have later additions to make it seem more believable.





JB0704 said:


> Nowhere on this forum have I ever tried to prove Jesus' divinity.  I find it to be an exercise in futility, and probably designed that way if faith is the objective.  I'm not going that direction because it is a huge waste of all our time.  I would rather pick a fight with the Christians about gay folks.



Most excellent






JB0704 said:


> Were they people?  Did their contemporaries record conversations?  Did those who worshipped them recognize that they were people?


Actually yes! Not only were their conversations recorded as if someone was there, but a few of those Gods slept with mortals and had children with mortals. Their stories, accounts, records and tales read darn near like the Bible is written. "And the Almighty Zeus said to......" "And Aphrodite replied...."
Just who in the heck recorded that when it was said????
Either those gods were real and inspired someone to write it down, OR, somebody(man) made it up and had hundreds of thousands of people believing it for thousands of years.
It sounds ridiculous when applied to another religion and easily dismissed as ancient beliefs, yet............we go round after round on here about another equally ancient religion. Time wise this current one didn't outlast the others, it was started later and happens to be One of the religions that is currently in favor. It too will burn out.

Please, read up...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greek_mythological_figures


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I am not convinced that there is enough in the NT to actually prove Jesus was real.



Which pretty much sums up my entire point....



bullethead said:


> Please, read up...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greek_mythological_figures



I took Latin for a while in HS, and my teacher was determined to show the similarities between Christianity and Greek Mythology (Samson v Hercules sort of thing).  So, I am pretty well learned on the Greek mythology.

My point was that the Greek Gods were not "human."  They interacted as such in the mythology, but always in the third person.  Jesus' story is told by contemporaries, as in "hey, I was there."

There are major differences in the objective of the writing as well.  We can go on and on.  In the end, you will dismiss every point I make as weak, and I will think you are just trying to look beyond the very obvious.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 26, 2012)

I do appreciate the conversation JB.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I do appreciate the conversation JB.


----------



## Asath (Apr 27, 2012)

Y’know, I spent the better part of an hour looking at that graphic, trying to make heads or tails out of just what it meant.  I got nothing.  It seems to try to put forward the idea that one thing was copied more than another, and is thus more reliable as a source.

“That can’t be the contention,” I thought, since not only would it cause the hundreds of millions of copies of Harry Potter books to be, therefore, true, by sheer readership and proliferation, but it would select a ‘Holy Book’ to compare against carefully selected writings that purported to be nothing of the sort.  

So, being charitable and cautious, I forwarded the graphic to thirty different friends, all of whom are credentialed thinkers, and who range from linguistics experts to philosophers to theologians to astrophysicists.  

As you would imagine, we hardly ever agree on a darned thing.

I’ll spare you the hundred or so pages of responses (though it livened up MY week, to say the least, and for this alone I thank the OP), but the highlights range from a simple, “WHAT????”; to an abstract addressing the vital difference between the thoughts of any single, known writer and the collected thoughts of a number of anonymous and unknown writers; to an observation that the comparisons are hardly contemporaneous, and one might as well compare hieroglyphs to movies for all the validity that is contained; to my personal favorite: “You’re telling me that any of these knuckleheads have actually READ Sophocles?”

The collective thought, in a nutshell, is that belief calls for plausibility.  The endless search for a definitive ‘GOTCHA!’ that is put forward by the believers has failed the test of time, and it has always been the believers that end up trying to explain away the real progress of genuine enlightenment.  There is no place, in the modern world, for the vehement defense of stories and superstitions that are thousands of years old.  The believers are forced to react and retrench almost daily.  

What is ‘reliable’ is the fragile web of civilization and technology that other HUMANS have put in place against the fact that what is ‘unreliable’ is the capriciousness of the natural world that some wish to believe that some sort of God put in place.  We do not spend our lives, time, resources, and energy ‘worshipping’ the natural world – we spend our time defending ourselves against it, and trying to enhance our odds.  If some sort of God put all this in place, then that God is trying to kill us, daily.  That is irretrievably and inarguably true.

This is simple sense.  Moving yourself and your family to higher ground after a flood is a ‘reliable’ survival tactic.  Staying put, and ‘believing’ that it is God’s will to drown you is idiocy.  

What is ‘reliable’ is what works, not what one thinks about it.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 27, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> This I get. What I don't get is why the historical/factual accuracy of the other works in this list are not nearly as debated, if at all?



It is like Democrats working the unemployment percentages. Ain't no winnin' for us peoples. They believe what they can statisticalize.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 27, 2012)

Asath said:


> Y’know, I spent the better part of an hour looking at that graphic, trying to make heads or tails out of just what it meant.  I got nothing.  It seems to try to put forward the idea that one thing was copied more than another, and is thus more reliable as a source.
> 
> “That can’t be the contention,” I thought, since not only would it cause the hundreds of millions of copies of Harry Potter books to be, therefore, true, by sheer readership and proliferation, but it would select a ‘Holy Book’ to compare against carefully selected writings that purported to be nothing of the sort.
> 
> ...



Case in point.


----------



## Asath (Apr 27, 2012)

Sir, if there is a truth you wish to put forward, and you can demonstrate it to be so, then, by all means, do so.


----------



## Asath (Apr 27, 2012)

We'll wait.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 28, 2012)

Asath said:


> Sir, if there is a truth you wish to put forward, and you can demonstrate it to be so, then, by all means, do so.



Here we go with the "Sir" thing again.

Your boogie rhetoric long word long wind mumbo jumbo speak better than thou crud know the truth speak of nothing just means PHLPTTTTTTT! Enjoy your intelligent discussion dude. I ain't buyin' it, DOOKEY!


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 28, 2012)

Asath said:


> We'll wait.



I'll wait you ninny. Write me four paragraphs about my obtuseness.


----------



## Asath (Apr 28, 2012)

Sir, I don't think that I said anything to merit the personal attack.  If that is your entire intellectual arsenal, as displayed, then perhaps you are in the wrong Forum.

Down here, at the bottom of the Forums, we expect folks to defend their thoughts with at least some modicum of actual evidence, rather than simply perpetrate 'drive-by' assertions, engage in name-calling, and smugly rest their case.

That sort of thing is little more than playground bullying, and has no place in an adult Forum.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 28, 2012)

Asath said:


> Sir, I don't think that I said anything to merit the personal attack.  If that is your entire intellectual arsenal, as displayed, then perhaps you are in the wrong Forum.
> 
> Down here, at the bottom of the Forums, we expect folks to defend their thoughts with at least some modicum of actual evidence, rather than simply perpetrate 'drive-by' assertions, engage in name-calling, and smugly rest their case.
> 
> That sort of thing is little more than playground bullying, and has no place in an adult Forum.




Go read some posts by mister ted.  He is not the type to add to a discussion.  His M.O. his hit and run posts that attack the writer not the position.  Its typical when ones own position is weak, with little basis in fact.  A very common liberal tactic as a matter fact.  

I bet ted drives a prius with an O'12 sticker on the back!


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 28, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Here we go with the "Sir" thing again.
> 
> Your boogie rhetoric long word long wind mumbo jumbo speak better than thou crud know the truth speak of nothing just means PHLPTTTTTTT! Enjoy your intelligent discussion dude. I ain't buyin' it, DOOKEY!




This is like a response a twelve year old might give.

Nanny, nanny boo boo


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 28, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> This is like a response a twelve year old might give.
> 
> Nanny, nanny boo boo



Thanks guys! I think it is some of my finest work.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 28, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Go read some posts by mister ted.  He is not the type to add to a discussion.  His M.O. his hit and run posts that attack the writer not the position.  Its typical when ones own position is weak, with little basis in fact.  A very common liberal tactic as a matter fact.
> 
> I bet ted drives a prius with an O'12 sticker on the back!



Should I word my attacks more like this?


----------



## Asath (Apr 29, 2012)

That WAS a little beneath the dignity of this forum, Bishop.

Well earned, and certainly well deserved, but c’mon guys – let’s try to keep it above the swamp here.  We win nothing by stooping to the tactics we receive, and it is well within our maturity levels to dodge a little bit of mud tossed our way.  

For my own part, I’ve found that the ‘Ignore’ option helps to keep my own blood-pressure well within normal ranges . . .


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 30, 2012)

Another graphic concerning biblical reliability...

http://www.project-reason.org/bibleContra_big.pdf


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 30, 2012)

Asath said:


> That WAS a little beneath the dignity of this forum, Bishop.
> 
> Well earned, and certainly well deserved, but c’mon guys – let’s try to keep it above the swamp here.  We win nothing by stooping to the tactics we receive, and it is well within our maturity levels to dodge a little bit of mud tossed our way.
> 
> For my own part, I’ve found that the ‘Ignore’ option helps to keep my own blood-pressure well within normal ranges . . .



Yeagh, I'm sorry that was pretty low.


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 30, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Another graphic concerning biblical reliability...
> 
> http://www.project-reason.org/bibleContra_big.pdf



Off topic, thought I'd say I laugh every time I see your avatar. I could only stomach one season of Trailer Park Boys, but Bubbles stole every episode!


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 30, 2012)

Asath said:


> That WAS a little beneath the dignity of this forum, Bishop.
> 
> Well earned, and certainly well deserved, but c’mon guys – let’s try to keep it above the swamp here.  We win nothing by stooping to the tactics we receive, and it is well within our maturity levels to dodge a little bit of mud tossed our way.
> 
> For my own part, I’ve found that the ‘Ignore’ option helps to keep my own blood-pressure well within normal ranges . . .



Why would you put anyone on 'ignore'?  Those people are the most likely to offer something amusing.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 30, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Why would you put anyone on 'ignore'?  Those people are the most likely to offer something amusing.



I almost put somebody in the PF on the ignore list, but figured, it wuold make the forum less interesting.  So, I don't have anybody on it.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 30, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I almost put somebody in the PF on the ignore list, but figured, it wuold make the forum less interesting.  So, I don't have anybody on it.



MUCH less interesting.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 30, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> Off topic, thought I'd say I laugh every time I see your avatar. I could only stomach one season of Trailer Park Boys, but Bubbles stole every episode!



Off topic? I thought the topic was reliability of the New Testament?


Bubbles rocks. Watched every season multiple times. Yeah it's low budget brainless comedy but still cracks me up.


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 30, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Off topic? I thought the topic was reliability of the New Testament?
> 
> 
> Bubbles rocks. Watched every season multiple times. Yeah it's low budget brainless comedy but still cracks me up.



I mean my comment about your avatar is off topic.  

It's been awhile, I might have to give them another shot.  Did Ricky ever get his grade 10?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 30, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> I mean my comment about your avatar is off topic.
> 
> It's been awhile, I might have to give them another shot.  Did Ricky ever get his grade 10?



Yep. Got his grade 10 and went on to vacational school to sell hash.


----------



## Asath (May 2, 2012)

“Why would you put anyone on 'ignore'? Those people are the most likely to offer something amusing.”

Agreed.  To a point.  Having a little tiny imitation of a dog yipping at your heels is amusing for about ten minutes.  But having it follow you around and keep yipping and nipping passes the amusement stage at a certain point, and it takes an extraordinary patience and strength of will not to simply kick it over the back fence.

As you’ve noticed, I’m not a Christian, and have no subsequent mandate to suffer fools, and thus be somehow redeemed on account of having done so.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 3, 2012)

Asath said:


> “Why would you put anyone on 'ignore'? Those people are the most likely to offer something amusing.”
> 
> Agreed.  To a point.  Having a little tiny imitation of a dog yipping at your heels is amusing for about ten minutes.  But having it follow you around and keep yipping and nipping passes the amusement stage at a certain point, and it takes an extraordinary patience and strength of will not to simply kick it over the back fence.
> 
> As you’ve noticed, I’m not a Christian, and have no subsequent mandate to suffer fools, and thus be somehow redeemed on account of having done so.



Yip Yip Nip, kick me.


----------



## ambush80 (May 4, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Yip Yip Nip, kick me.



Your witness is showing again.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 4, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Your witness is showing again.



I guess I am just tired of this "inteliigent discussion". Your circles just lead back to the beginning. Mine do the same, I am not denying that. I reckon I'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Asath (May 5, 2012)

Q.e.d.


----------



## fish hawk (May 15, 2012)

Asath said:


> “.
> 
> As you’ve noticed, I’m not a Christian, and have no subsequent mandate to suffer fools, and thus be somehow redeemed on account of having done so.



OOps!!!


----------



## Four (Jun 7, 2012)

Not to bring stuff back from the dead but i was watching a talk about the origins of the NT and parts that were modified etc and he said we have ~5,700 original copies in greek, most of them fragments. This chart says 24,000... He also said that the earliest copy we have of mark was 150 years after the original.

Did we ever get the sources to this?

edit: it turns out the earliest copy of the bible we have is a credit card sized piece of John, dated to about 125 AD.. about 40 years after it was originally written.

edit2: Holy crap, did you guys know this guy in 1700 got a printing press and wanted to print out greek copies of the NT... so he gathered about 100 manuscripts and compared them, took 30 years to compile one book from the 100, but cited the points they were different... of the 100 or so he compared, he cited 30,000 separate differences.... and that wasnt all he found, just what he felt relevant.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 7, 2012)

Four said:


> Not to bring stuff back from the dead but i was watching a talk about the origins of the NT and parts that were modified etc and he said we have ~5,700 original copies in greek, most of them fragments. This chart says 24,000...



It's been awhile, so I had to go back to the OP to refresh my memory.  I just did a quick search and found this:


_"We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today!"_

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm

So, the 24K number includes languages other than Greek.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 7, 2012)

Four said:


> edit2: Holy crap, did you guys know this guy in 1700 got a printing press and wanted to print out greek copies of the NT... so he gathered about 100 manuscripts and compared them, took 30 years to compile one book from the 100, but cited the points they were different... of the 100 or so he compared, he cited 30,000 separate differences.... and that wasnt all he found, just what he felt relevant.





centerpin fan said:


> _"We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today!"_
> 
> http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm
> 
> So, the 24K number* includes languages other than Greek*.



Which probably also has a lot to do with the 30,000 "differences" as well.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 7, 2012)

Four said:


> edit2: Holy crap, did you guys know this guy in 1700 got a printing press and wanted to print out greek copies of the NT... so he gathered about 100 manuscripts and compared them, took 30 years to compile one book from the 100, but cited the points they were different... of the 100 or so he compared, he cited 30,000 separate differences.... and that wasnt all he found, just what he felt relevant.



I'd really need more info to comment intelligently, but I will say that in 1700, most of the manuscripts that were known were of the Majority text.  They were very similar and had only minor differences.  It wasn't until the 19th century that other non-Majority texts like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were discovered.


----------



## Four (Jun 7, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Which probably also has a lot to do with the 30,000 "differences" as well.



the 30,000 differences were based on about  a hundred greek manuscripts that a single person had possession of.


----------

