Archeologly proves the Bible?

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by eccles

On "Egypt Dreams" Forum I asked for opinions about Acharya S.'s books.

THis is one reply:

Goodness Eccles you have such a rude little avatar!
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...8951818591.jpg

"Xeper-na adrit xeperu em sesep"
"I come into being, making the transformation into light.~Sitessa"

Sitessa is her nic.

This is the avatar I have in that Forum:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...895e3e0d76.jpg

The only opinion I have received is unfortunately not an opinion but this:
Taken from Wikipedia:
The Writings of D.M. Murdock, written under the pen name Acharya S, are controversial texts. Acharya is a proponent of the Jesus myth hypothesis. She has authored three books and operates a website named Truth be Known. She believes Christianity is founded on earlier myths and the characters depicted in Christianity are based upon Roman, Greek, Egyptian, and other myths

Her books seem to be more involved with re-inventing Christianity than anything much to do with Egypt.
She is completely refuted by established Egyptian excavations and documented writers.

I wanted a personal opinion from one of the members. I don't care what it is, if it says they are crap. At least I am learning more about the Egyptian Religion.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...4aa90d2878.png

Personal Opinion: You are 100% correct.

Personal Opinion at JREFF: I will do some reading and post some references and quotes to demonstrate that you are 100% correct.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by DOC

From the article "Reliability of the Text of the NT":

"The New Testament is by far the most reliable ancient writing known today. There exist as many as an astounding 25,000[1] ancient manuscripts that contain all or portions of the New Testament.'

http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH11A.htm

Here are the citationsfor this claim:
1)The Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume I through X: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to AD 325 (1997). Volume 4, page 349. Origen (ca. 185-254 AD) was one of the first apologists in the early Christian church.

2)Josh McDowell , The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict (1999), chapter 3.

I can't find a thing on 1 and have no idea how it relates at all.
However:

Quote:

"There are more than 5,686 known [partial or complete] Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions [manuscripts], and we have close to, if not more than, 25,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today. No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, Homer’s Illiad is second, with only 643 manuscripts that still survive." (McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict, p. 34)

This claim is attributed to McDowell and frankly I have no idea what his justification for making this statement is.
However wiki has a great write up on his topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblica...nt_manuscripts

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by DOC

"There exist as many as an astounding 25,000 ancient manuscripts that contain all or portions of the New Testament."

And hundreds of thousands that don't. We win.

[eccles]

Originally Posted by DOC

From the article "Reliability of the Text of the NT":

"The New Testament is by far the most reliable ancient writing known today. There exist as many as an astounding 25,000[1] ancient manuscripts that contain all or portions of the New Testament.'

http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH11A.htm

DOC,
This site you have referred to is yet another apologist Christian site, not acceptable as a non-biased authority.
e.g. It states:
125 AD – Oldest Fragment (P52): Perhaps the earliest section of Scripture to survive is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John 18:31-33 and 37 of about 2 ½ x 3 ½ inches. Known as the Rylands Papyrus (P52), it dates from the first half of the second century, as early as 117-138 AD. Found in Egypt (some distance from the probable place of composition in Asia Minor), this little piece of papyrus has forced the critics to place the fourth gospel in the first century, abandoning previous assertions that it could not have been written by the apostle John.

That is only a fragment of a copy. It cannot be verified and would not as such be acceptable as sworn evidence in a court of law.

I'll bet you will never find a non-biased opinion. I certainly can't and it is not for the want of looking. I have been on this case for about 5 years.

[paximperium]

You only have to notice that McDowell or DOC carefully avoid stating how old these manuscripts are. The vast majority are from the Dark and Middle Ages.

[eccles]

Gentlemen, it is true:

"During my research I asked many Christian believers: “Why do you believe that God exists? What is, for you, the evidence that God exists?” After a few moments of thinking, I usually would get one of the following answers:

I just know it.
I feel it in my heart.
I have seen Him at work in my life.
God has answered prayers.
Because the Bible reveals Him."

Jesus, have you ever seen such circular reasoning, and DOC quoted from this site.

[eccles]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...&printable=yes

Textual criticism (or lower criticism) is a branch of literary criticism that is concerned with the identification and removal of transcription errors in the texts of manuscripts. Ancient scribes made errors or alterations when copying manuscripts by hand.[1] Given a manuscript copy, several or many copies, but not the original document, the textual critic seeks to reconstruct the original text (the archetype or autograph) as closely as possible. The same processes can be used to attempt to reconstruct intermediate editions, or recensions, of a document's transcription history.[2] The ultimate objective of the textual critic's work is the production of a "critical edition" containing a text most closely approximating the original.

But Gentlemen, THERE ARE NO ORIGINALS.

[amb]

What we have today are copies of copies of copies of the N/T. And O/T for that matter as well. Like Eccles has stated, there are no originals in existence anywhere.
With each copying the authors added or subtracted what he/she thought ought to be there or not. Such is Christianities foundations.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by DOC

From the article "Reliability of the Text of the NT":

"The New Testament is by far the most reliable ancient writing known today. There exist as many as an astounding 25,000[1] ancient manuscripts that contain all or portions of the New Testament.'

http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH11A.htm

Thanks for the link, DOC.
When I went around, I found this:

Quote:

Counting Greek copies alone, the texts are preserved in 5,366 partial and complete manuscripts hand copied from the second through the fifteenth century. A few New Testament fragments are very early, dating from the second century. At least 362 New Testament manuscripts and 245 lectionaries (collections of Scripture texts grouped together for reading in public worship services) date from the second through the tenth centuries, constituting nearly 11% of all New Testament and lectionary manuscripts. Such early manuscripts are valuable in establishing the original text of the New Testament. The other 89% of manuscripts are minuscule, dating between the ninth and fifteenth centuries.[2]

And once again, as Lord Emsworth, eccles, paximperium and other posters have pointed out, this figure is completely distorted. As we see, less than 1% of these manuscripts have any bearing whatsoever on the discussion here. Franky, I'm surprised DOC used this source.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by pakeha

And once again, as Lord Emsworth, eccles, paximperium and other posters have pointed out, this figure is completely distorted. As we see, less than 1% of these manuscripts have any bearing whatsoever on the discussion here. Franky, I'm surprised DOC used this source.

By now, some of us are not.

ETA: The jury is still out on whether he thinks he can get away with it, or if he simply doesn't understand what he's linking to and thinks it actually supports his position.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by DOC

From the article "Reliability of the Text of the NT":

"The New Testament is by far the most reliable ancient writing known today. There exist as many as an astounding 25,000[1] ancient manuscripts that contain all or portions of the New Testament.'

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by paximperium

...This claim is attributed to McDowell and frankly I have no idea what his justification for making this statement is.
However wiki has a great write up on his topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblica...nt_manuscripts

Thanks for the link, paximperium. I spent some time going over the article and the external links.
And I found this:

Quote:

As with the Old Testament, we just don't know who wrote most of the New Testament. Tradition has assigned the Gospels and most of the Epistles to certain authors, all of whom were important figures in Jesus' life or the early days of the faith. It was important for the early church to believe the authors wrote the works attributed to them, since their eminence lent the writings authority. But since we don't have the original signatures, none can be verified except through textual clues.

The first generation of Christians didn't see any need for a permanent written record of the sayings and stories of Jesus. Jesus' return and the restoration of the Kingdom of God on earth were imminent--why bother preserving stories if the world was about to end? Stories were simply passed along orally, primarily as a means of preaching and convincing outsiders. But as the first generation began to die off and hopes for the Second Coming dimmed, there was a need to preserve Jesus' words and deeds for posterity.

As is obvious, I'm very new here. This explanation of why there's little or nothing written in the 1st century is fresh to me and it makes sense. If the early Christians believed that soon, very soon would occur the second coming, there'd be no need to write anything down.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by eccles

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...&printable=yes

Textual criticism (or lower criticism) is a branch of literary criticism that is concerned with the identification and removal of transcription errors in the texts of manuscripts. Ancient scribes made errors or alterations when copying manuscripts by hand.[1] Given a manuscript copy, several or many copies, but not the original document, the textual critic seeks to reconstruct the original text (the archetype or autograph) as closely as possible. The same processes can be used to attempt to reconstruct intermediate editions, or recensions, of a document's transcription history.[2] The ultimate objective of the textual critic's work is the production of a "critical edition" containing a text most closely approximating the original.

But Gentlemen, THERE ARE NO ORIGINALS.

Careful, though: there are primary sources, and that's a pretty useful textual criticism. One of the glaring errors in debates like the supposed historicity of Jesus is that the narrative has evolved and changed so much over the centuries that in many ways the current rendition in no way represents earlier (or the earliest) renditions. This is a useful consideration for both those arguing in the positive as well as those arguing the negative in the "historical Jesus" debate. In many ways, this is also applicable to many different claims about biblical accuracy, since the Christian bible is such an evolved text of interpretations atop interpretations, not just copies of copies or translations of translations.

And don't even get me started on doctrines, which seem to evolve a great deal over varying spans of time (though progressively shorter spans in modern times) and are at best laughable in their claims of steadfastness.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

...ETA: The jury is still out on whether he thinks he can get away with it, or if he simply doesn't understand what he's linking to and thinks it actually supports his position.

Yes, I read that thread, as well as several others similar in content. I find it fascinating to see this insistence on using the same source material, even though it be outdated or misleading or, as in this particular case, home goals. That's why I asked if DOC's church insisted on the use of these particular sources.
Considering the incredible amount of information out on the web, I found it noteworthy that not only DOC, but Christian biblical study sites in general seem rely on books, ideas and opinions published before WWII, especially in a subject involving archeology, where evolving techniques and methodology along with new discoveries practically guarantee the last word is never said.

[eccles]

Now this will interest you guys. In D.M. Murdock's "Christ in Egypt" there is a chapter "Was Horus Crucified".. Don't stop reading yet .. In it she refers to the mention of crosses frequently depicted by the Egyptians. I gather you would be familar with the ANKH. Murdock makes references to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, so I looked up "Crucifix and found this lengthy article. Her is part of it:
"Another symbol which has been connected with the cross is the ansated cross (ankh or crux ansata) of the ancient Egyptians, wrongly called the "ansated key of the Nile". It often appears as a symbolic sign in the hands of the goddess Sekhet. From the earliest times also it appears among the hieroglyphic signs symbolic of life or of the living, and was transliterated into Greek as Anse (Ansa). But the meaning of this sign is very obscure (Da Morgan, Recherches sur les origines de l'Egypte, 1896-98); perhaps it was originally, like the swastika, an astronomical sign. The ansated cross is found on many and various monuments of Egypt (Prisse d'Avennes, L'art Egyptien, 404). In later times the Egyptian Christians (Copts), attracted by its form, and perhaps by its symbolism, adopted it as the emblem of the cross (Gayet, "Les monuments coptes du Musée de Boulaq" in "Mémoires de le mission française du Caire", VIII, fasc. III, 1889, p. 18, pl. XXXI-XXXII and LXX-LXXI)."

Link to whole article:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04517a.htm

It talks about the use of Crosses in many religious myths, very ancient ones. It talks about the Gradual development of the cross in Christian art. I have not read the whole article yet. The time here is 1:45 AM. I am printing it so I can read it later and add it to my collection.

It is interesting how many times the Catholic Encyclopaedia sort of questions some aspects of Christianity.

[GreNME]

Listen, eccles, have you ever heard of confirmation bias? Please be aware of this when looking into supposed connections.

[eccles]

"Listen, eccles, have you ever heard of confirmation bias? Please be aware of this when looking into supposed connections"

Yes I have heard of it and no, it is not affecting by study of this subject. If you want to accuse anyone of Confirmation Bias, accuse biblical scholars, especially Roman Catholic ones. They will turn a pig into a horse if it will "prove" their biases.

Look I am not saying that I think any of the Egyptian gods were real. Of course not. All I am saying is that I am seeing how many religions culminating in Christianity have many similarities with the religions of the Middle Eastern area.

[Simon39759]

Originally Posted by DOC

From the article "Reliability of the Text of the NT":

"The New Testament is by far the most reliable ancient writing known today. There exist as many as an astounding 25,000[1] ancient manuscripts that contain all or portions of the New Testament.'

http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH11A.htm

Apparently, but you were mentioning this number in connection with 'the Romans burning the Bibles'.
The persecutions occurred sporadically for centuries, with decades of calm and tolerance in between. The last persecution was in 311, but it was part of a civil war between the pagan Galerius and the Christian Constantine.

As I mentioned any text after that date is irrelevant, by then, if anything, it was the Christians doing the burning.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by eccles

"Listen, eccles, have you ever heard of confirmation bias? Please be aware of this when looking into supposed connections"

Yes I have heard of it and no, it is not affecting by study of this subject. If you want to accuse anyone of Confirmation Bias, accuse biblical scholars, especially Roman Catholic ones. They will turn a pig into a horse if it will "prove" their biases.

Whether you're prepared to accept it, yes it definitely is affecting your study of this subject. Please don't let your dissatisfaction with your previous religious affiliation color your propensity to accept numerous correlative claims that have little to no lines of causation. The Ankh/Christian symbol of the cross thing is a perfect example of doing precisely that. The symbol that we call the Ankh in no way played any similar role to that of the Christian cross in Egyptian narratives and myths. Just because they look the same-- and I mean this just as much for the Christians who would claim similarity as I would the theosophists who would claim similarity-- does not necessitate them having any causative relationship. Taking simple, basic shapes and assigning a correlative relationship is just sloppy archaeology of the kind that hearkens back to a century and a half ago when people were considered "experts" after coming up with a plausibly believable story about an artifact they had no knowledge of to begin with.

Originally Posted by eccles

Look I am not saying that I think any of the Egyptian gods were real. Of course not. All I am saying is that I am seeing how many religions culminating in Christianity have many similarities with the religions of the Middle Eastern area.

What you're doing is applying a correlative relationship and implying a causative one. However, what a lot of people who try to apply the "Out of Egypt" methodology-- whether having to do with religion, technology, astrology, or whatever-- tend to mistakenly do is get the causative factors mixed up and often enough backwards. Chances are far more likely that the varied and diverse cultural practices from the Arabian region made their way over into the North African kingdom of Ancient Egypt, not the other way around. We know of three cultural movements in Egypt where there were definite influences thrust upon the population over a period of time: the Hyksos, the Ptolemy leaders and the Greeks, and the Romans after that. All three of those are huge examples, not counting the number of times that the Egyptians and different Mid-Eastern kingdoms fought over the land that now makes up Gaza and nearly half of modern-day Israel-- those pieces of land switched ownership so many times in antiquity you have to really check the time frame to know who was running things at the time.

I'm saying that I understand what you're explaining in your comparisons, and I'm pointing out that a lot of the correlations you're giving only work when looking at things from a limited perspective.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by paximperium

You only have to notice that McDowell or DOC carefully avoid stating how old these manuscripts are. The vast majority are from the Dark and Middle Ages.

That's normal for ancient writings -- we don't even have a signature of Julius Caesar in existence, does that mean he never existed.

ETA

And some of the Christian manuscripts we have are much sooner (by hundreds of years) closer to the time of events than most other ancient writings. From the source cited in post# 604.

"By contrast, the manuscripts for most other ancient books date from about a thousand years after their original composition. To compare this to the other ancient writings: Homer’s Iliad is in “second place” behind the New Testament with no more than 643 copies. And of Plato’s Tetralogies only seven copies are known. Also the earliest copy of Plato’s work is dated about 1,200 years after he produced the original. The oldest copy of the Iliad dates about 500 years after the original. This is a dramatic contrast to the oldest papyrus text of the New Testament, a part of chapter 18 of the Gospel of John, dated at near 125 AD."

http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH11A.htm

[joobz]

Originally Posted by DOC

That's normal for ancient writings -- we don't even have a signature of Julius Caesar in existence, does that mean he never existed.

So in other words, the number of manuscripts are a meaningless measure of veracity. thanks for admitting that.

[Elizabeth I]

Quote:

From the article "Reliability of the Text of the NT":

"The New Testament is by far the most reliable ancient writing known today. There exist as many as an astounding 25,000[1] ancient manuscripts that contain all or portions of the New Testament.'

http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH11A.htm

Windmill Ministries? There's a nice, non-biased source.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by DOC

That's normal for ancient writings -- we don't even have a signature of Julius Caesar in existence, does that mean he never existed.

So you accept that these inflation of the number of manuscripts continue to be meaningless to the actual truth?

It is entirely possible that Gaius Julius Caesar may be a complete fabrication but his existence is actually corroborated by extra-Roman writings and archeology; both which continue to be missing in your posts.

Isn't it amazing how a person with minimal actual writings can confidently shown to exist when supported with archeology? Where's yours?

[DOC]

Originally Posted by joobz

So in other words, the number of manuscripts are a meaningless measure of veracity. thanks for admitting that.

If you think the fact that there are 25,000 manuscripts for the New Testament and only 7 for Plato is meaningless I would have to disagree.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by DOC

If you think the fact that there are 25,000 manuscripts for the New Testament and only 7 for Plato is meaningless I would have to disagree.

Why? Everyone here more or less thinks it is meaningless except for you. Please do tell.

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

If you think the fact that there are 25,000 manuscripts for the New Testament and only 7 for Plato is meaningless I would have to disagree.

I think it is significant that you still, after 3,653 posts, still haven't understood how the appeal to large numbers is a logical fallacy.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by paximperium

It is entirely possible that Gaius Julius Caesar may be a complete fabrication but his existence is actually corroborated by extra-Roman writings and archeology; both which continue to be missing in your posts.

Isn't it amazing how a person with minimal actual writings can confidently shown to exist when supported with archeology? Where's yours?

What archaeology supports Caesar, statues and buildings? We have statues and buildings for Zeus.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by DOC

If you think the fact that there are 25,000 manuscripts for the New Testament and only 7 for Plato is meaningless I would have to disagree.

You just clearly proved that veracity doesn't depend on the number of manuscripts. Your Julius Ceasar example refuted your entire claim.

Over 400 million copies of Harry potter are in circulation. Does this make it more real than other novels? According to your argument, it does.


One final point:
Number of copies of a text correlate with popularity, not with truth. Just because something is popular doesn't make it true or right.

[boloboffin]

Originally Posted by DOC

What archaeology supports Caesar, statues and buildings? We have statues and buildings for Zeus.

Another bit of evidence that DOC simply is trolling.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally Posted by DOC

That's normal for ancient writings -- we don't even have a signature of Julius Caesar in existence, does that mean he never existed.

ETA

And some of the Christian manuscripts we have are much sooner (by hundreds of years) closer to the time of events than most other ancient writings. From the source cited in post# 604.

"By contrast, the manuscripts for most other ancient books date from about a thousand years after their original composition. To compare this to the other ancient writings: Homer’s Iliad is in “second place” behind the New Testament with no more than 643 copies. And of Plato’s Tetralogies only seven copies are known. Also the earliest copy of Plato’s work is dated about 1,200 years after he produced the original. The oldest copy of the Iliad dates about 500 years after the original. This is a dramatic contrast to the oldest papyrus text of the New Testament, a part of chapter 18 of the Gospel of John, dated at near 125 AD."

http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH11A.htm

Of course all this matters little if the story is fictional to boot. Even if you had several millions of mint condition copies dating only months or weeks within the composition of Harry Potter, it would still be Harry Potter the fictional character.

Have you meanwhile realized that there are not 25.000 ancient manuscripts of the NT? And that this marvellous number includes MSS up to the fifteenth (!) century*?

(And it is hardly surprising that there is such a high number of manuscripts considering the need and desire of all the various communties/churches/monasteries to have their own copy of the NT.)




* Thanks to Pakeha for digging that out.

[Lucian]

Originally Posted by DOC

That's normal for ancient writings -- we don't even have a signature of Julius Caesar in existence, does that mean he never existed.

ETA

And some of the Christian manuscripts we have are much sooner (by hundreds of years) closer to the time of events than most other ancient writings. From the source cited in post# 604.

"By contrast, the manuscripts for most other ancient books date from about a thousand years after their original composition. To compare this to the other ancient writings: Homer’s Iliad is in “second place” behind the New Testament with no more than 643 copies. And of Plato’s Tetralogies only seven copies are known. Also the earliest copy of Plato’s work is dated about 1,200 years after he produced the original. The oldest copy of the Iliad dates about 500 years after the original. This is a dramatic contrast to the oldest papyrus text of the New Testament, a part of chapter 18 of the Gospel of John, dated at near 125 AD."

http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH11A.htm

And I'm sure there are variations and mistakes in the texts of other ancient works. Furthermore, I imagine classical scholars get into uncoordinated fistfights over the interpretations of textual cruces in these texts (I know this is true of disagreements over texts of medieval works such as Beowulf). There are certainly problems with the Homeric works, since they were originally oral poems, and variation is a hallmark of oral composition. The thing is, though, no one is claiming that the Iliad is the inerrant word of Zeus, and while it may have been based on historic events, no one is claiming that Homer was one of the world's greatest historians.

Moreover, at least the Iliad is a single work (with interpolations); the Bible is a bunch of different writings that were chosen somewhat arbitrarily out of many and put together; the Bible has been subject to much editing.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by DOC

What archaeology supports Caesar, statues and buildings? We have statues and buildings for Zeus.

Yes there is. Why are you rejecting Zeus?

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC

If you think the fact that there are 25,000 manuscripts for the New Testament and only 7 for Plato is meaningless I would have to disagree.

Originally Posted by paximperium

Why? Everyone here more or less thinks it is meaningless except for you. Please do tell.

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

I think it is significant that you still, after 3,653 posts, still haven't understood how the appeal to large numbers is a logical fallacy.

Actually the large number of manuscripts is quite important. It not only demonstrates the power of the Gospel to motivate so much effort to hand write these 25,000 manuscripts, it also allows us to know with a great deal of accuracy (when comparing manuscript to manuscript) that the words in the New Testament are around 99% accurate to the original writings.

From the source cited in post 604:

The importance of the vast number of manuscripts copies cannot be overstated. This abundance of manuscripts makes it possible to reconstruct the original with virtually complete accuracy...[3]

...In the words of Dockery, Mathews and Sloan: “For most of the Biblical text a single reading has been transmitted. Elimination of scribal errors and intentional changes leaves only a small percentage of text about which any questions occur.”[11] They conclude: “It must be said that the amount of time between the original composition and the next surviving manuscript is far less for the New Testament than for any other work in Greek literature…..Although there are certain differences in many of the New Testament manuscripts, not one fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading.” [12]

http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH11A.htm

[joobz]

Originally Posted by DOC

Actually the large number of manuscripts is quite important. It not only demonstrates the power of the Gospel to motivate so much effort to hand write these 25,000 manuscripts, it also allows us to know with a great deal of accuracy (when comparing manuscript to manuscript) that the words in the New Testament are around 99% accurate to the original writings.

Assuming this is true and using your reasoning, we are then 99% confident that Jesus did condone the beating of slaves.


ETA:
Any denial of this point amounts to simple, dishonest special pleading.
DOC, do you know what special pleading is?

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by joobz

Assuming this is true and using your reasoning, we are then 99% confident that Jesus did condone the beating of slaves.

well to be fair to the man, he didn't complain too much when he got his own beating, he even helped out his assailants by carrying some wood for a construction project immediately afterwards, Jesus perhaps then was a sadomasochist and not just a sociopathic genocidal sadistic misogynist like his father

[boloboffin]

Originally Posted by DOC

Actually the large number of manuscripts is quite important. It not only demonstrates the power of the Gospel to motivate so much effort to hand write these 25,000 manuscripts, it also allows us to know with a great deal of accuracy (when comparing manuscript to manuscript) that the words in the New Testament are around 99% accurate to the original writings.

How many of those documents date to the first two centuries of the common era, DOC?

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Lord Emsworth

...Have you meanwhile realized that there are not 25.000 ancient manuscripts of the NT? And that this marvellous number includes MSS up to the fifteenth (!) century*?

(And it is hardly surprising that there is such a high number of manuscripts considering the need and desire of all the various communties/churches/monasteries to have their own copy of the NT.)
* Thanks to Pakeha for digging that out.

It's nice to be appreciated, but truth to tell, all I did was read the article in the link DOC provided.
I've even come across a reason as to why there are so few remains or fragments of the NT before the second century- the early Christians were expecting the Second Coming at any moment and it was only as the first generation of Christians died off that it became desirable to write out the sayings, etc.
Apparently the caches of ancient manuscripts were often 'junkyards' of flawed copies of the NT, as well.
In any case, of the 'ancient' NTs about, less than 1% of them are from before 300 AD.
I find it misleading and intellectually dishonest to count post-Constantine NT manuscripts as of interest in this discussion. I think that to quote such artifically bloated statistics a great mistake, DOC.

[Simon39759]

Originally Posted by DOC

Actually the large number of manuscripts is quite important. It not only demonstrates the power of the Gospel to motivate so much effort to hand write these 25,000 manuscripts, it also allows us to know with a great deal of accuracy (when comparing manuscript to manuscript) that the words in the New Testament are around 99% accurate to the original writings.

The gospels was important for Christians?
Really?



You'd be making a significant point if anybody had doubted it.

Quote:

From the source cited in post 604:
The importance of the vast number of manuscripts copies cannot be overstated. This abundance of manuscripts makes it possible to reconstruct the original with virtually complete accuracy...[3]
...In the words of Dockery, Mathews and Sloan: “For most of the Biblical text a single reading has been transmitted. Elimination of scribal errors and intentional changes leaves only a small percentage of text about which any questions occur.”[11] They conclude: “It must be said that the amount of time between the original composition and the next surviving manuscript is far less for the New Testament than for any other work in Greek literature…..Although there are certain differences in many of the New Testament manuscripts, not one fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading.” [12]
http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH11A.htm

And... why is it so?
It only means that only a few sources served as model and were greatly duplicated. This is no proof that this source was close from the original, just that this source was 'fit', if one wants to use an evolutionary metaphor.
We know that after the council of Nicea, Constantine ordered the production of 50ies copy of the Bible to serve as model and we know that subsequent emperors did the same thing, picking up one particular version and offering it as the model.
It doesn't mean anything unless you can prove these 'original' to actually be faithful to the first generation of gospels. Good luck with that.

[TimCallahan]

Well, DOC:

I still haven't got a response from you regarding the discrpencies between the Lucan and Matthean Nativity stories. I wonder if I ever will.

As to William M. Ramsay, I've looked him up on Wikkipedia and some other sites and have yet to find any mention of him having originally been a skeptic, then having a conversion experience. Can you direct me to a religiously neutral site that supports this claim?

As to archaeological evidence fo the existence of the various caesars, when you say that the manoscripts refering to them are all much later copies, you fail to consider other forms of evidence, such as inscriptions and iconographic evidence. Let me give you a few specifics:

1. Coins: Because the Romans wanted to be remembered and had a penchant for realism the emperors had their profiles put in relief on coins issued during their reigns, along with their names. Thus, we know that Emperor Nerva had a huge nose that dominated his face. Vespasian's profile, like that of Nero shows a double chin, as do busts of Vespasian and his son Titus. However, while Nero's profile shows an indolent, soft and rather spoiled face; that of Vespasian shows determination and strength: He was stout rather than soft and fat.
Events were also depicted in reliefs on coins. A coin in the British Museum shows a weeping woman sitting at the bae of a palm tree. A Roman soldier stands next to her. The inscription on the coin reads IUDEA CAPTA (Judea Taken). This, like the relief on the Triumphal Arch of Titus, which shows the great Menorah from the Jerusalem Temple being carried in triumph in a Roman military parade, refers to the Jewish revolt that the Romans crushed in the year 70.

2. Inscriptions: As noted above, The Triumphal Arch of Titus shows the Roman trimph in crushing the Jewish revolt. There is also the relief and inscription depicting Trajan's conqest of Dacia.

3. Busts: I've already mentioned the busts of Vesasian and Titus. A bust of Julius Caesar in middle-age shows a clean-shaven man with close-cropped hair with rater pinched features and definite ser to his jaw. The bust of Claudius shows a man with a slightly furrowed brow and a much less formidable visage. While the busts of Julius Caesar and Claudius show clean-shaven men, that of Marcus Aurelius shows a man with a full, Greek-style beard.

You can find photos of the busts of Julius Caesar and Claudius, the coin depicting Vespasian's profile and the IUDEA CAPTA coin, a drawing of the coin with Nero's profile and a photo of the detail from the Atrch of Titus, of the Roman parade bearing the great Menorah, on page 372 of my book Secret Origins of te Bible.

So there's considerable preserved archaeological evidence of the Roman emperors and the events of Roman history, including very specific evidence of what the Roman emperors looked like. By contrast, we have absolutely no idea what Jesus looked like. The earliest images of him depict him as beardless. However, as a first century Jew, he would have to have been bearded. He is usually depicted as tall and lean; but we have no idea of even what his build was like. He could have been short and stocky.

[eccles]

"Can you direct me to a religiously neutral site that supports this claim?"

Don't hold your breath, Tim. There ain't no beast. For years I have been trying to find one.