| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Voice of Truth" |
| Date: |
16 Oct 2004 12:02:23 AM |
| Object: |
The Superior Reliability of New Testament |
Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability
The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and
accuracy are often contested by critics. But, if the critics want to
disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other
ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the
New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than
any other ancient writing. Because the copies are so numerous, they
can be cross checked for accuracy. This process has determined that
the biblical documents are extremely consistent and accurate.
There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for
the New Testament.1 If we were to compare the number of New Testament
manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament
manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.
Author2 Date
Written Earliest Copy Approximate Time Span between original & copy
Number of Copies
Accuracy of Copies
Lucretius died 55 or 53 B.C. 1100 yrs 2 ----
Pliny 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 750 yrs 7 ----
Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 yrs 7 ----
Demosthenes 4th Cent. B.C. 1100 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Herodotus 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Euripides 480-406 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1300 yrs 9 ----
Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 10 ----
Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1000 10 ----
Livy 59 BC-AD 17 ---- ??? 20 ----
Tacitus circa 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 yrs 20 ----
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1400 49 ----
Sophocles 496-406 B.C. 1000 A.D. 1400 yrs 193 ----
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95%
New
Testament 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D. 2nd Cent. A.D.
(c. 130 A.D. f.) less than 100 years 5600 99.5%
As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek
manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency
of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is
an amazing accuracy. In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the
Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting
New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.
Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament
documents were all written before the close of the first century. If
Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New
Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it
means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament
documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other
words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were
inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have
absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the first century
that contest the New Testament texts.
Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the
fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to
around 29 years from the original writing. This is extremely close to
the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other
ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a first
century document.
Below is a chart with some of the oldest extant New Testament
manuscripts compared to when they were originally penned. Compare
these time spans with the next closest which is Homer's Iliad where
the closest copy from the original is 500 years later. Undoubtedly,
that period of time allows for more textual corruption in its
transmission. How much less so for the New Testament documents?
Important
Manuscript
Papyri Contents Date
Original Written
MSS
Date Approx.
Time Span Location
p52
(John Rylands
Fragment)3 John 18:31-33,37-38 circa
96 A.D. circa
125
A.D. 29 yrs John Rylands Library, Manchester, England
P46
(Chester Beatty Papyrus) Rom. 5:17-6:3,5-14; 8:15-25, 27-35, 37-9:32;
10:1-11, 22, 24-33, 35-14:8,9-15:9, 11-33; 16:1-23, 25-27; Heb.; 1 & 2
Cor., Eph., Gal., Phil., Col.; 1 Thess. 1:1,9-10; 2:1-3; 5:5-9, 23-28
50's-70's circa
200
A.D. Approx.
150 yrs Chester Beatty Museum, Dublin & Ann Arbor, Michigan,
University of Michigan library
P66
(Bodmer Papyrus) John 1:1-6:11,35-14:26; fragment of 14:29-21:9 70's
circa
200
A.D. Approx.
130 yrs Cologne, Geneva
P67 Matt. 3:9,15; 5:20-22, 25-28 circa
200
A.D. Approx.
130 yrs Barcelona, Fundacion San Lucas Evangelista, P. Barc.1
If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable
information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the
writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and the other authors
mentioned in the chart at the beginning of the paper. On the other
hand, if the critics acknowledge the historicity and writings of those
other individuals, then they must also retain the historicity and
writings of the New Testament authors; after all, the evidence for the
New Testament's reliability is far greater than the others. The
Christian has substantially superior criteria for affirming the New
Testament documents than he does for any other ancient writing. It is
good evidence on which to base the trust in the reliability of the New
Testament.
1. Norman Geisler & Peter Bocchino, Unshakeable Foundations,
(Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2001) p. 256.
2. This chart was adapted from three sources: 1) Christian
Apologetics, by Norman Geisler, 1976, p. 307; 2) the article
"Archaeology and History attest to the Reliability of the Bible," by
Richard M. Fales, Ph.D., in The Evidence Bible, Compiled by Ray
Comfort, Bridge-Logos Publishers, Gainesville, FL, 2001, p. 163; and
3) A Ready Defense, by Josh Mcdowell, 1993, p. 45.
3."Deissmann was convinced that p52 was written well within the reign
of Hadrian (A.D. 117-38) and perhaps even during the time of Trajan
(A.D. 98-117)" (Footnote #2 found on pg. 39 of The Text of the New
Testament, by Bruce M. Metzger, 2nd Ed. 1968, Oxford University
Press, NY, NY). Bruce Metzger has authored more than 50 books. He
holds two Masters Degrees, a Ph.D. and has been awarded several
honorary doctorates. "He is past president of the Society of Biblical
Literature, the International Society fo New Testament Studies, an the
North American Patristic Society." -- From, The Case for Christ, by
Lee Strobel, Zondervan Publishers, 1998, Grand Rapids, MI: pg. 57.
http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm
.
|
|
| User: "Toby" |
|
| Title: Re: The Superior Reliability of New Testament |
16 Oct 2004 06:36:29 AM |
|
|
Nothing worse than a fanatical Christian...they never give up...
Toby
"Voice of Truth" <voiceoftruth227@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:816e1d8c.0410152102.3c962780@posting.google.com...
Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability
The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and
accuracy are often contested by critics. But, if the critics want to
disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other
ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the
New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than
any other ancient writing. Because the copies are so numerous, they
can be cross checked for accuracy. This process has determined that
the biblical documents are extremely consistent and accurate.
There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for
the New Testament.1 If we were to compare the number of New Testament
manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament
manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.
Author2 Date
Written Earliest Copy Approximate Time Span between original & copy
Number of Copies
Accuracy of Copies
Lucretius died 55 or 53 B.C. 1100 yrs 2 ----
Pliny 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 750 yrs 7 ----
Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 yrs 7 ----
Demosthenes 4th Cent. B.C. 1100 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Herodotus 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Euripides 480-406 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1300 yrs 9 ----
Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 10 ----
Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1000 10 ----
Livy 59 BC-AD 17 ---- ??? 20 ----
Tacitus circa 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 yrs 20 ----
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1400 49 ----
Sophocles 496-406 B.C. 1000 A.D. 1400 yrs 193 ----
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95%
New
Testament 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D. 2nd Cent. A.D.
(c. 130 A.D. f.) less than 100 years 5600 99.5%
As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek
manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency
of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is
an amazing accuracy. In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the
Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting
New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.
Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament
documents were all written before the close of the first century. If
Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New
Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it
means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament
documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other
words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were
inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have
absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the first century
that contest the New Testament texts.
Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the
fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to
around 29 years from the original writing. This is extremely close to
the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other
ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a first
century document.
Below is a chart with some of the oldest extant New Testament
manuscripts compared to when they were originally penned. Compare
these time spans with the next closest which is Homer's Iliad where
the closest copy from the original is 500 years later. Undoubtedly,
that period of time allows for more textual corruption in its
transmission. How much less so for the New Testament documents?
Important
Manuscript
Papyri Contents Date
Original Written
MSS
Date Approx.
Time Span Location
p52
(John Rylands
Fragment)3 John 18:31-33,37-38 circa
96 A.D. circa
125
A.D. 29 yrs John Rylands Library, Manchester, England
P46
(Chester Beatty Papyrus) Rom. 5:17-6:3,5-14; 8:15-25, 27-35, 37-9:32;
10:1-11, 22, 24-33, 35-14:8,9-15:9, 11-33; 16:1-23, 25-27; Heb.; 1 & 2
Cor., Eph., Gal., Phil., Col.; 1 Thess. 1:1,9-10; 2:1-3; 5:5-9, 23-28
50's-70's circa
200
A.D. Approx.
150 yrs Chester Beatty Museum, Dublin & Ann Arbor, Michigan,
University of Michigan library
P66
(Bodmer Papyrus) John 1:1-6:11,35-14:26; fragment of 14:29-21:9 70's
circa
200
A.D. Approx.
130 yrs Cologne, Geneva
P67 Matt. 3:9,15; 5:20-22, 25-28 circa
200
A.D. Approx.
130 yrs Barcelona, Fundacion San Lucas Evangelista, P. Barc.1
If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable
information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the
writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and the other authors
mentioned in the chart at the beginning of the paper. On the other
hand, if the critics acknowledge the historicity and writings of those
other individuals, then they must also retain the historicity and
writings of the New Testament authors; after all, the evidence for the
New Testament's reliability is far greater than the others. The
Christian has substantially superior criteria for affirming the New
Testament documents than he does for any other ancient writing. It is
good evidence on which to base the trust in the reliability of the New
Testament.
1. Norman Geisler & Peter Bocchino, Unshakeable Foundations,
(Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2001) p. 256.
2. This chart was adapted from three sources: 1) Christian
Apologetics, by Norman Geisler, 1976, p. 307; 2) the article
"Archaeology and History attest to the Reliability of the Bible," by
Richard M. Fales, Ph.D., in The Evidence Bible, Compiled by Ray
Comfort, Bridge-Logos Publishers, Gainesville, FL, 2001, p. 163; and
3) A Ready Defense, by Josh Mcdowell, 1993, p. 45.
3."Deissmann was convinced that p52 was written well within the reign
of Hadrian (A.D. 117-38) and perhaps even during the time of Trajan
(A.D. 98-117)" (Footnote #2 found on pg. 39 of The Text of the New
Testament, by Bruce M. Metzger, 2nd Ed. 1968, Oxford University
Press, NY, NY). Bruce Metzger has authored more than 50 books. He
holds two Masters Degrees, a Ph.D. and has been awarded several
honorary doctorates. "He is past president of the Society of Biblical
Literature, the International Society fo New Testament Studies, an the
North American Patristic Society." -- From, The Case for Christ, by
Lee Strobel, Zondervan Publishers, 1998, Grand Rapids, MI: pg. 57.
http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: The Superior Reliability of New Testament |
16 Oct 2004 12:21:36 AM |
|
|
On 15 Oct 2004 22:02:23 -0700, (Voice of
Truth) wrote:
The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and
accuracy are often contested by critics. But, if the critics want to
disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other
ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the
New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than
any other ancient writing. Because the copies are so numerous, they
can be cross checked for accuracy. This process has determined that
the biblical documents are extremely consistent and accurate.
This is completely irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the contents.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory A Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Superior Reliability of New Testament |
16 Oct 2004 03:55:09 AM |
|
|
In article <n8c1n01iuooghhu5tnr8qv8c2o75a14a61@4ax.com>,
quoththeraven@nevermore.com says...
On 15 Oct 2004 22:02:23 -0700, (Voice of
Truth) wrote:
The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and
accuracy are often contested by critics. But, if the critics want to
disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other
ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the
New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than
any other ancient writing. Because the copies are so numerous, they
can be cross checked for accuracy. This process has determined that
the biblical documents are extremely consistent and accurate.
This is completely irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the contents.
You only wrote that line once, so obviously it is incorrect.
--
Greg
----
greg -at- spencersoft -dot- com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: The Superior Reliability of New Testament |
16 Oct 2004 04:34:48 AM |
|
|
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
In article <n8c1n01iuooghhu5tnr8qv8c2o75a14a61@4ax.com>,
quoththeraven@nevermore.com says...
On 15 Oct 2004 22:02:23 -0700, (Voice of
Truth) wrote:
The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and
accuracy are often contested by critics. But, if the critics want
to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other
ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because
the New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous
than any other ancient writing. Because the copies are so
numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy. This process has
determined that the biblical documents are extremely consistent and
accurate.
This is completely irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the
contents.
You only wrote that line once, so obviously it is incorrect.
But you only wrote that line once so it is incorrect which means that the
first one is correct.
Be careful the odd numbered turtles are cranky.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: The Superior Reliability of New Testament |
16 Oct 2004 12:11:37 AM |
|
|
On 15 Oct 2004, Voice of Truth dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability
Let's give it the acid test, shall we Raytard?
OT
Gen.5:24
"And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; For God took him."
2 Kg.2:11
"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."
Heb.11:5
"Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found,
because God had translated him."
NT
Jn.3:13
"No man hath ascended up to heaven."
Gee, Ray. Lookee here. It's a contradiction. Big surprise.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
Vote for John Kerry
God belongs in church, not the White House.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gordon" |
|
| Title: Re: The Superior Reliability of New Testament |
29 Oct 2004 04:03:02 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:11:37 GMT, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
On 15 Oct 2004, Voice of Truth dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability
Let's give it the acid test, shall we Raytard?
OT
Gen.5:24
"And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; For God took him."
2 Kg.2:11
"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."
Heb.11:5
"Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found,
because God had translated him."
Do we know that any of the above were still classed as a man at
the time they were taken up? I think the valid interpretation of
these passages is that no flesh and blood mortal "man" has ever
ascended up to Heaven.
NT
Jn.3:13
"No man hath ascended up to heaven."
Gee, Ray. Lookee here. It's a contradiction. Big surprise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: The Superior Reliability of New Testament |
29 Oct 2004 08:28:06 PM |
|
|
On 29 Oct 2004, Gordon dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
Do we know that any of the above were still classed as a man at
the time they were taken up?
What you are suggesting here is that man can turn into not-man.
I think the valid interpretation of
these passages is that no flesh and blood mortal "man" has ever
ascended up to Heaven.
What other kind of man is there? Of course the only valid interpretation
of these passages is "bull".
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
Vote for John Kerry
God belongs in church, not the White House.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Godfrey" |
|
| Title: Re: The Superior Reliability of New Testament |
16 Oct 2004 04:35:11 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:11:37 GMT, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
On 15 Oct 2004, Voice of Truth dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability
Let's give it the acid test, shall we Raytard?
OT
Gen.5:24
"And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; For God took him."
2 Kg.2:11
"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."
Heb.11:5
"Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found,
because God had translated him."
NT
Jn.3:13
"No man hath ascended up to heaven."
Gee, Ray. Lookee here. It's a contradiction. Big surprise.
Well, I'm shocked. I thought the Bible- both Testaments- was the
literal word of God. Surely you're not implying that the Almighty
can't get his own story straight, being that he's omniscient and all.
You will burn in Hell for this heresey, Vic.
See ya there. :-)
Godfrey
The truth is a precious commodity. That's why I use it so sparingly.
- Mark Twain
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: The Superior Reliability of New Testament |
16 Oct 2004 11:11:42 AM |
|
|
on 16 Oct 2004 in alt.atheism, Godfrey dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:11:37 GMT, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
On 15 Oct 2004, Voice of Truth dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability
Let's give it the acid test, shall we Raytard?
OT
Gen.5:24
"And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; For God took him."
2 Kg.2:11
"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."
Heb.11:5
"Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found,
because God had translated him."
NT
Jn.3:13
"No man hath ascended up to heaven."
Gee, Ray. Lookee here. It's a contradiction. Big surprise.
Well, I'm shocked. I thought the Bible- both Testaments- was the
literal word of God. Surely you're not implying that the Almighty
can't get his own story straight, being that he's omniscient and all.
You will burn in Hell for this heresey, Vic.
See ya there. :-)
Only if you can give me a road map. I'm terrible with directions.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
The whole foundation of Christianity is based on the idea that
intellectualism is the work of the Devil. Remember the apple on the tree?
Okay, it was the Tree of Knowledge. "You eat this apple, you're going to be
as smart as God. We can't have that."
[Frank Zappa]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: The Superior Reliability of New Testament |
16 Oct 2004 08:02:04 AM |
|
|
Voice of Truth wrote:
Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability
The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and
accuracy are often contested by critics. But, if the critics want to
disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other
ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the
New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than
any other ancient writing. Because the copies are so numerous, they
can be cross checked for accuracy. This process has determined that
the biblical documents are extremely consistent and accurate.
There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for
the New Testament.1 If we were to compare the number of New Testament
manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament
manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.
Utterly irrelevant un;less they were written close to the originals or
even all copied from the same source
As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek
manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency
of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is
an amazing accuracy.
Yes, let down by the fact that it isn't true, the real figure is about
50%, 40 for the gospels
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Bibaccuracy.html
Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament
documents were all written before the close of the first century.
Well, apart from all those that would place John later and wouldn't
commit to Luke and Acts being in that time
If
Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New
Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it
means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament
documents were penned who could have contested the writings.
Only if they were true you imbecile and only if they were widely circulated
In other
words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were
inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out.
Again, if the events did not happen and the documents were not shown,
who is going to be able to say "I was there when this didn't happen and
didn't see any of it"
But, we have
absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the first century
that contest the New Testament texts.
Wow, that proves it, the church would never destroy anti Christian
writings and as you pointed out earlier, all writings from the period
exist in many copies, not just Christina ones. Oh, you dind't, it is
actually the oppposite isn't it?
Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the
fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to
around 29 years from the original writing. This is extremely close to
the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other
ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a first
century document.
Dating documents like this is never an exact science. Care to provide
the reference for the dating so we can see what it was based on?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostle Thomas Batchelor" |
|
| Title: Re: The Superior Reliability of New Testament |
16 Oct 2004 10:43:22 AM |
|
|
I greet you all in the Lord Jesus' name, even the Lord Jesus Himself, Who
appeared to me.
He has a glorified body and is eternal spirit too. He is the present-tense
Lord; we don't need
manuscripts as much as you think. God and His angels live in the NOW.
You need the Holy Spirit baptism. Go to some charismatic Christians and
get the Holy Spirit baptism. Then
you can ask God ANYTHING like I do. You don't have to depend on
manuscripts so.
Apostle Thomas Batchelor.
"Ash" <Ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ckr644$ahg$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Voice of Truth wrote:
Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability
The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and
accuracy are often contested by critics. But, if the critics want to
disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other
ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the
New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than
any other ancient writing. Because the copies are so numerous, they
can be cross checked for accuracy. This process has determined that
the biblical documents are extremely consistent and accurate.
There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for
the New Testament.1 If we were to compare the number of New Testament
manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament
manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.
Utterly irrelevant un;less they were written close to the originals or
even all copied from the same source
As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek
manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency
of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is
an amazing accuracy.
Yes, let down by the fact that it isn't true, the real figure is about
50%, 40 for the gospels
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Bibaccuracy.html
Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament
documents were all written before the close of the first century.
Well, apart from all those that would place John later and wouldn't
commit to Luke and Acts being in that time
If
Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New
Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it
means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament
documents were penned who could have contested the writings.
Only if they were true you imbecile and only if they were widely
circulated
In other
words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were
inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out.
Again, if the events did not happen and the documents were not shown,
who is going to be able to say "I was there when this didn't happen and
didn't see any of it"
But, we have
absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the first century
that contest the New Testament texts.
Wow, that proves it, the church would never destroy anti Christian
writings and as you pointed out earlier, all writings from the period
exist in many copies, not just Christina ones. Oh, you dind't, it is
actually the oppposite isn't it?
Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the
fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to
around 29 years from the original writing. This is extremely close to
the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other
ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a first
century document.
Dating documents like this is never an exact science. Care to provide
the reference for the dating so we can see what it was based on?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: The Superior Reliability of New Testament |
16 Oct 2004 06:20:33 PM |
|
|
"Apostle Thomas Batchelor" <thomasbatchelor@juno.com> wrote in message
news:67ebf$4171420b$3fbac94b$5251@allthenewsgroups.com...
I greet you all in the Lord Jesus' name, even the Lord Jesus Himself, Who
appeared to me.
He has a glorified body and is eternal spirit too. He is the
present-tense
Lord; we don't need
manuscripts as much as you think. God and His angels live in the NOW.
You need the Holy Spirit baptism. Go to some charismatic Christians and
get the Holy Spirit baptism. Then
you can ask God ANYTHING like I do. You don't have to depend on
manuscripts so.
Apostle Thomas Batchelor.
"Ash" <Ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ckr644$ahg$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Voice of Truth wrote:
I've been there, done that, and was and am still an atheist.
--
Chinese accordions suck.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: The Superior Reliability of New Testament |
16 Oct 2004 11:56:54 AM |
|
|
Apostle Thomas Batchelor wrote:
I greet you all in the Lord Jesus' name, even the Lord Jesus Himself,
Who appeared to me.
He has a glorified body and is eternal spirit too. He is the
present-tense Lord; we don't need
manuscripts as much as you think. God and His angels live in the
NOW.
You need the Holy Spirit baptism. Go to some charismatic Christians
and get the Holy Spirit baptism. Then
you can ask God ANYTHING like I do. You don't have to depend on
manuscripts so.
Apostle Thomas Batchelor.
I just asked god to remove all idiots who top post from this group.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Pearse" |
|
| Title: Re: The Superior Reliability of New Testament |
29 Oct 2004 02:14:05 PM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<qpccd.14476$nj.2423@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>...
Apostle Thomas Batchelor wrote:
I greet you all in the Lord Jesus' name, even the Lord Jesus Himself,
Who appeared to me.
He has a glorified body and is eternal spirit too. He is the
present-tense Lord; we don't need
manuscripts as much as you think. God and His angels live in the
NOW.
You need the Holy Spirit baptism. Go to some charismatic Christians
and get the Holy Spirit baptism. Then
you can ask God ANYTHING like I do. You don't have to depend on
manuscripts so.
Apostle Thomas Batchelor.
I just asked god to remove all idiots who top post from this group.
You can't say that Ash didn't ask for it, tho.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Hovnanian P.E." |
|
| Title: Re: The Superior Reliability of New Testament |
16 Oct 2004 07:05:35 PM |
|
|
Mike Painter wrote:
Apostle Thomas Batchelor wrote:
I greet you all in the Lord Jesus' name, even the Lord Jesus Himself,
Who appeared to me.
He has a glorified body and is eternal spirit too. He is the
present-tense Lord; we don't need
manuscripts as much as you think. God and His angels live in the
NOW.
You need the Holy Spirit baptism. Go to some charismatic Christians
and get the Holy Spirit baptism. Then
you can ask God ANYTHING like I do. You don't have to depend on
manuscripts so.
Apostle Thomas Batchelor.
I just asked god to remove all idiots who top post from this group.
"And the beast shall come forth surrounded by a roiling cloud of
vengeance. The house of the unbelievers shall be razed and they shall be
scorched to the earth. Their tags shall blink until the end of days."
from The Book of Mozilla, 12:10
It must be true. Somebody published it on the web.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
-- Etaoin Shrdlu
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny Bravo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Superior Reliability of New Testament |
17 Oct 2004 02:50:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:56:54 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I just asked god to remove all idiots who top post from this group.
Unfortunately that won't work any better than any other request for
a miracle. :)
--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: The Superior Reliability of New Testament |
16 Oct 2004 01:53:48 PM |
|
|
Apostle Thomas Batchelor wrote:
I greet you all in the Lord Jesus' name, even the Lord Jesus Himself, Who
appeared to me.
Gawd, another ***** who gets hallucinations....
He has a glorified body and is eternal spirit too.
Nope, sorry.
He is the present-tense
Lord; we don't need
manuscripts as much as you think.
We don't need religious texts at all, well, only for a laugh.
God and His angels live in the NOW.
You need the Holy Spirit baptism. Go to some charismatic Christians and
get the Holy Spirit baptism. Then
you can ask God ANYTHING like I do. You don't have to depend on
manuscripts so.
There is no 'God'.
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
Skype callto://hellward
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: The Superior Reliability of New Testament |
16 Oct 2004 02:38:02 PM |
|
|
Apostle Thomas Batchelor wrote:
I greet you all in the Lord Jesus' name, even the Lord Jesus Himself, Who
appeared to me.
He has a glorified body and is eternal spirit too. He is the present-tense
Lord; we don't need
manuscripts as much as you think. God and His angels live in the NOW.
You need the Holy Spirit baptism. Go to some charismatic Christians and
get the Holy Spirit baptism. Then
you can ask God ANYTHING like I do. You don't have to depend on
manuscripts so.
Of course we can, though like you, we will get no answer
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nemo nemo outis" |
|
| Title: Re: The Superior Reliability of New Testament |
16 Oct 2004 03:09:01 PM |
|
|
In article <67ebf$4171420b$3fbac94b$5251@allthenewsgroups.com>, "Apostle Thomas Batchelor" <thomasbatchelor@juno.com> wrote:
...snip...
Then you can ask God ANYTHING like I do. You don't have to
depend on manuscripts so.
Glendower: "I can call spirits from the vasty deep.”
Hotspur: “Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come
when you do call for them?”
Regards,
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: The Superior Reliability of New Testament |
16 Oct 2004 03:27:11 PM |
|
|
on 16 Oct 2004 in alt.atheism, Apostle Thomas Batchelor dropped trou,
farted, whirled, then shouted:
I greet you all in the Lord Jesus' name, even the Lord Jesus Himself,
Who appeared to me.
He has a glorified body and is eternal spirit too. He is the
present-tense Lord; we don't need
manuscripts as much as you think. God and His angels live in the
NOW. You need the Holy Spirit baptism. Go to some charismatic
Christians and get the Holy Spirit baptism. Then
you can ask God ANYTHING like I do. You don't have to depend on
manuscripts so.
Apostle Thomas Batchelor.
Thank you, Thomas. Your hoplessly delusional rant has just fortified my
atheism.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
The whole foundation of Christianity is based on the idea that
intellectualism is the work of the Devil. Remember the apple on the tree?
Okay, it was the Tree of Knowledge. "You eat this apple, you're going to be
as smart as God. We can't have that."
[Frank Zappa]
.
|
|
|
| User: "metonymy" |
|
| Title: Re: The Superior Reliability of New Testament |
16 Oct 2004 04:46:12 PM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
Thank you, Thomas. Your hoplessly delusional rant has just fortified my
atheism.
Thanks Vic, your bad spelling has just fortified my faith in spell checkers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: The Superior Reliability of New Testament |
16 Oct 2004 08:09:29 PM |
|
|
On 16 Oct 2004, metonymy dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
Thank you, Thomas. Your hoplessly delusional rant has just fortified
my atheism.
Thanks Vic, your bad spelling has just fortified my faith in spell
checkers.
I happen to have it on good authority that Thomas is quite unable to hop
during one of his rants.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
Vote for John Kerry
God belongs in church, not the White House.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Is God Always Superior to Jesus?
Scott Allen Salberg is "so superior that you can't even see it" LOL
PAT ROBERTSON SAY* ATHEISTS ARE individuals sadist, lying, opportunist obsessive cynical, vain people until the a dementia, unprovided of any superior moral feeling and any good intention for more minimum than were, except, perhaps, in the direction
Are Christians Morally Superior To Atheists?
CBS News: Killian's Superior Officers Confirmed AWOL Memo
for Joey the alteration's given, ahead of me it's institutional, whereas no longer you it's killing superior
Is God Always Superior to Jesus?
Is God Always Superior to Jesus?
| Eugenics Alive And Well: Breeding Superior Race In Hollywood
OT: Females have advanced sexual software superior to males basic version
Is God Always Superior to Jesus?
Independent testing proves dragon skin superior
Sept 11th, wake up Yankee fuckers. You're not as invincible as you think you are. For some reason you think you are the most superior race ever to walk the earth. Ignorant, arrogant, obnoxious and totally full of yourselves. You can call Britain an
Blacks Stupid, Whites Average, Jews/East-Asians Superior
Is God Always Superior to Jesus?
|
|
|
