1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    15 Dec '05 00:36
    For instance, do you believe the story of Jesus and the adulterous
    woman "let him who is without sin cast the first stone'
    to be real and from Jesus? John chap 6 and 7.
  2. Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    15 Dec '05 00:40
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    For instance, do you believe the story of Jesus and the adulterous
    woman "let him who is without sin cast the first stone'
    to be real and from Jesus? John chap 6 and 7.
    My educated guess....95%....
    The 5% is error in translation....just a guess mind you..
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    15 Dec '05 01:19
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    My educated guess....95%....
    The 5% is error in translation....just a guess mind you..
    Would you believe the 'cast the first stone' story is a complete
    and utter fabrication and wasn't put in the bible till one scribe
    put it in the liner notes in around the year 1200.
    There are no texts in the original greek with that story in it.
    Thats only scratches the surface of the additions and subtractions
    made by scribes a thousand years ago.
    We think of books as all being the same because of the invention
    of the printing press a few hundred years ago but the bible, to be
    copied, had to be done by hand by scribes who were part of small
    companies whose job it was to copy books, the bible being only one
    of them. So there are so many versions of the bible from ancient times
    how can anyone believe any story of the bible as being dictated by
    god or inspired by god? No one has the original and even today there
    are re-written so-called translations that change the text making it
    even farther from the original, if indeed there WAS an original.
  4. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    15 Dec '05 01:211 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Would you believe the 'cast the first stone' story is a complete
    and utter fabrication and wasn't put in the bible till one scribe
    put it in the liner notes in around the year 1200.
    Do fundamentalists believe this? If so, which version of the Bible is the Word of God? The original, or one of the later versions?
  5. Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    15 Dec '05 01:39
    I posted this on another thread and didn't want to rewrite....it's from a book I am reading by F.F.Bruce...

    There is more evidence for the New Testament writings than for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. If the NT were a collection of secular writings there would be no doubt to their authenticity. They would be beyond doubt. In fact, Historians have been much readier to trust the NT records than have many Theologians.
    There are in existence over 5000 Greek manuscripts of the NT in whole or in part. The best and most important go back to somewhere around 350 AD.
    We can appreciate how wealthy the NT is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works.
    For Caesar's Gallic War, (composed between 58 and 50 BC) there are several extant mss, but only 9 or 10 are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar's day.
    Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59 BC-AD 17) only thirty five survive; these are known to us from not more than 20 mss of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of books iii-vi, is as old as the 4th century.
    Of the 14 books of the Histories of Tasitus(AD-100) only 4 and one half survive; of the 16 books of his Annals, 10 survive in full and 2 in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on 2 mss, one of the ninth century and one of the 11th.
    The history of Thucydides (460-400 BC) is known to us from 8 mss, the earliest belonging to AD 900 and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era.
    The same is true about the History of Herodotus (488-428 BC).
    Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest mss of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.
    But how different is the situation of the New Testament in this respect!
    In addition to the 5000 Greek manuscripts mentioned, there are fragments of papyrus copies of books of the NT dated from 100-200 years earlier still.The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, the existence of which was made public in 1933, consist of portions of 11 papyrus codices, 3 of which contain most of the NT writings.
    There is extensive evidence, numerous mss, of which are readily available to anyone seeking as such. Most of my info comes from the writings of FF Bruce (1910-1990). I have just begun reading this field and have yet to scratch the surface.
  6. Donationkirksey957
    Outkast
    With White Women
    Joined
    31 Jul '01
    Moves
    91452
    15 Dec '05 01:43
    I was listening to Terri Gross interview this biblical scholar on this subject today. Here is the link: www.npr.org/tenplates/story/story.php?storyId=5052156.
  7. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    15 Dec '05 03:33
    The entire Bible is completely true just as long as you understand that it is a true record of man's quest for the divine in a specific place and time. When a reader considers its truths universal, it is mostly false.
  8. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    15 Dec '05 03:37
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    I posted this on another thread and didn't want to rewrite....it's from a book I am reading by F.F.Bruce...

    There is more evidence for the New Testament writings than for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. If the NT were a collection of secular writings there would be no doubt to their authent ...[text shortened]... FF Bruce (1910-1990). I have just begun reading this field and have yet to scratch the surface.
    The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?. I read it in 1981 or 1982.

    I tried in vain last spring and summer to get RB Hill or blindfaith101 to take up questions that they could have answered easily with reference to F.F. Bruce.
  9. Standard membertelerion
    True X X Xian
    The Lord's Army
    Joined
    18 Jul '04
    Moves
    8353
    15 Dec '05 05:05
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    For instance, do you believe the story of Jesus and the adulterous
    woman "let him who is without sin cast the first stone'
    to be real and from Jesus? John chap 6 and 7.
    Less than 1%.
  10. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    15 Dec '05 05:07
    Originally posted by telerion
    Less than 1%.
    How can a First Lieutenant in the Lord's Army claim that less than 1% of the Bible is true?
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    15 Dec '05 05:13
    Originally posted by telerion
    Less than 1%.
    Yeah but WHICH one percent?
  12. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    15 Dec '05 06:30
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    I posted this on another thread and didn't want to rewrite....it's from a book I am reading by F.F.Bruce...

    There is more evidence for the New Testament writings than for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. If the NT were a collection of secular writings there would be no doubt to their authent ...[text shortened]... FF Bruce (1910-1990). I have just begun reading this field and have yet to scratch the surface.
    I posted a response indicating the misleading quality of this information. None those
    points were addressed or, as far as I can tell, heeded.

    Nemesio
  13. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    15 Dec '05 06:41
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest mss of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.
    This is wrong. Classical scholars correct and amend manuscripts of all of these
    authors all the time. They note additions and changes, they note errors and
    make commentaries.

    They also indicate where Tacitus, Herodotus or whoever is just plain wrong in
    their histories.

    These very techniques -- the ones honed and refined with these classical authors --
    are the same techniques used in Biblical scholarship to discern that the Pastoral
    Epistles are not written by St Paul or that the lady caught in adultery is not
    really authentically St John's writing or that Revelation is not written by the same
    author as the Gospel of St John, and so forth.

    So, don't give a BS reference to classical scholars and their text-critical and redaction
    techniques if you are going to refuse to acknolwedge that same work when applied to
    the Christian Scripture.

    Nemesio
  14. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    15 Dec '05 08:37
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    These very techniques -- are the same techniques used in Biblical scholarship to discern that the Pastoral
    Epistles are not written by St Paul or that the lady caught in adultery is not
    really authentically St John's writing or that Revelation is not written by the same
    author as the Gospel of St John, and so forth.



    Nemesio
    Sound a little like the Jesus Seminars, replete with all types of 'scholars,' expecting, of course, any who would dare show up without the requiste preconceived ideology.
  15. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    15 Dec '05 08:43
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Sound a little like the Jesus Seminars, replete with all types of 'scholars,' expecting, of course, any who would dare show up without the requiste preconceived ideology.
    You have it backwards. The Jesus Seminar asks that no one come with any preconceptions.

    Anyway, Crossen and his lot hardly constitute the entirety of the scholarly Biblical community.

    And, what makes you put 'scholars' in quotes like that?

    Do you question their scholarship? If so, on what grounds?

    Nemesio
Back to Top