- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by FMFTake the gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Are you saying the words in the gospels for example have been changed to be totally different in meaning now to when they were originally written by said authors? Yes or No?
What are you referring to? Who are you referring to?
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhere are these supposed "original manuscripts"?
Take the gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Are you saying the words in the gospels for example have been changed to be totally different in meaning now to when they were originally written by said authors? Yes or No?
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhat I am saying is, and I will simply copy paste it here if I may, the New Testament is a set of texts that were written and edited and added to for hundreds of years by many unknown authors before they were 'finalized'. They are therefore a secondary source, and only a primary source in so far as they are evidence of what texts Christians use for the basis of their religion.
Take the gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Are you saying the words in the gospels for example have been changed to be totally different in meaning now to when they were originally written by said authors? Yes or No?
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2becker"Because the New Testament
provides the primary historical source
for information on the resurrection,
many critics during the 19th century
attacked the reliability of these biblical
documents.
By the end of the 19th century, however,
archaeological discoveries had
confirmed the accuracy of the New
Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of
early papyri bridged the gap between
the time of Christ and existing
manuscripts from a later date.
Those findings increased scholarly
confidence in the reliability of the
Bible. William F. Albright, who in
his day was the world's foremost
biblical archaeologist, said: "We can
already say emphatically that there is
no longer any solid basis for dating any
book of the New Testament after about
A.D. 80, two full generations before
the date between 130 and 150 given
by the more radical New Testament
critics of today."
Coinciding with the papyri discoveries,
an abundance of other manu-scripts came to light (over
24,000 copies of early, New Testament
manuscripts are known to be in
existence today). The historian Luke
wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning
the resurrection. Sir William
Ramsay, who spent 15 years
attempting to undermine Luke's
credentials as a historian and to
refute the reliability of the New Testament,
finally concluded: "Luke is a
historian of the first rank.... This
author should be placed along with
the very greatest of historians."
"I claim to be an
historian. My approach
to Classics is historical.
And I tell you that the evidence
for the life, death, and
the resurrection of Christ is
better authenticated than
most of the facts of ancient
history…."
E.M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University
Presumably this copy paste was your best shot at convincing me that the New Testament is "primary source" evidence proving that the resurrection of Jesus actually happened.
Thanks.
Originally posted by dj2beckerMy perspective is exactly how I have stated it. Just read it again if you want to know what it is. I don't view the NT as being a "primary source" because blah blah blah. Read it. It's my perspective.
Is your perspective that the words now recorded in the gospels are different in meaning to the original words written by the original authors? Yes or No?
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou mean, why wouldn't I be interested in discussing this in detail with you? Well, surely that it is my prerogative? I don't feel the need or the desire to somehow encapsulate a life time of reading, thinking, and discussing these matters with all manner of people in order to make my perspective convincing to you. I just don't have the desire to indulge you.
Why wouldn't you be if your perspective was based on the truth?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by FMFAnd my question to you is do you have any reason to believe the words that are currently recorded in the gospels have been changed to mean something different to what was intended by the original authors? This is a simple yes or no question.
My perspective is exactly how I have stated it. Just read it again if you want to know what it is. I don't view the NT as being a "primary source" because blah blah blah. Read it. It's my perspective.
Originally posted by dj2beckerAnd I have already responded to this. You should read what I am saying to you
And my question to you is do you have any reason to believe the words that are currently recorded in the gospels have been changed to mean something different to what was intended by the original authors? This is a simple yes or no question.