Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Discussions of Faith
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 07-22-2019, 1:11 PM
RAMCLAP's Avatar
RAMCLAP RAMCLAP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orange, CA
Posts: 2,209
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

My bad. You are correct. It turns out the Mark fragment is not first century. There still is not enough variation to change meaning. We certainly don't have any that say something completely different. Though not New Teatament, the Dead Seas Scroll show conclusively that there is little to no variation from what we use now.
__________________
Psalm 103
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-22-2019, 1:14 PM
The War Wagon's Avatar
The War Wagon The War Wagon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: da' 'BURGH
Posts: 5,783
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrieta578 View Post
We know for example that the Gospels were not written by Mathew, Mark, Luke and John.



You IMAGINE... they were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John.


And that's only the START of YOUR problems...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-22-2019, 3:09 PM
Arrieta578 Arrieta578 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 441
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMCLAP View Post
My bad. You are correct. It turns out the Mark fragment is not first century. There still is not enough variation to change meaning. We certainly don't have any that say something completely different. Though not New Teatament, the Dead Seas Scroll show conclusively that there is little to no variation from what we use now.
The DSSs only deal with the Old Testament. There is nothing in them that deals with Jesus, early Christianity, or the New Testament and while it is true that the variant of Isaiah is very similar to the Masoretic text from the year 1000 AD, the version of Jeremiah in the DSSs was 15% shorter than the current Jeremiah in use today.

As to the differences, the story of the woman accused of adultery who is to be stoned to death and Jesus’ subsequent statement that “those without sin may cast the first stone” is a glaring example of the problems we face in attempting to “fix” (i.e. establish or solidify) the New Testament. That story does not appear in any of the versions of the New Testament prior to the 10th Century. While this is an egregious example of a variations amongst the texts, it clearly demonstrates that such variants simply cannot be ignored.

James White makes an excellent point in his closing remarks while debating Bart Ehrman. He says (I am paraphrasing) that “as Christians, we must recognize and deal with these issues of textual variants and inconsistencies head-on in an open, educational and honest manner —especially when it comes to our youth. Better that they learn about them from those in the Faith than from those who wish destroy our Faith, because if we do not, when our children grow up and enter the world and learn about these issues from others, our attempt to cover them up and ignore them will only serve to ask the question ‘what else have we been covering up and ignoring?’ And it is at that moment, when our young will call into question all of the tenets that we profess and have taught them about our Faith.”

Last edited by Arrieta578; 07-22-2019 at 3:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-22-2019, 3:18 PM
Arrieta578 Arrieta578 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 441
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The War Wagon View Post
You IMAGINE... they were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John.


And that's only the START of YOUR problems...
Dr. Mr. War Wagon;

It is clear by your comments that my commentary on the historicity of the New Testament has deeply offended you and your sensibilities.

For that I sincerely apologize.

Yours Truely and May God be With You,

Arrieta578
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-22-2019, 3:51 PM
omgwtfbbq's Avatar
omgwtfbbq omgwtfbbq is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Cheyenne, WY
Posts: 3,256
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wordupmybrotha View Post
I don't think he was blind
There seems to be some contention over that. Some say that the character was blind before finding the Bible and hearing the words of God, but was granted sight until his task of saving the word was finished. This would explain why he could read braille, but also why he could do things that sighted people could.

However, I think there are a lot of cinematographic clues that show that at least the film makers want us to believe he is blind. For instance, his heightened sense of smell/hearing. Also in one scene they show a close up of his eyes and they appear milky like some people with blindness.
__________________
"Far and away the best prize life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." - Theodore Roosevelt

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmorris7556 View Post
They teach you secret stuff I can't mention on line.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-22-2019, 5:26 PM
RAMCLAP's Avatar
RAMCLAP RAMCLAP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orange, CA
Posts: 2,209
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Matthew 16:15-16 NET

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Matthew 16:15-16 KJV

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Matthew 16:15-16 ESV

He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Then Simon Peter answered, and said, Thou art that Christ, the son of the living God.

Matthew 16:15-16 GNV

The meaning doesn't change. If two letters were swapped from two seperate parchments, the meaning stays the same. No one believes the Bible we read now in infallible or inerrent. We believe the original texts that the Apostle's wrote were inerrent and infalible.
__________________
Psalm 103
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-22-2019, 7:06 PM
Arrieta578 Arrieta578 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 441
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Ramclap,

Wow, when we talk about variations I wish it was that simple. If it were, we would not be having this discussion.

Unfortunately, the situation is much more complicated.

Please see below:

Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126.

16:9-20 The Ending(s) of Mark. Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it k), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.
(2) Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L Ψ 099 0112), as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harelean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts, and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts, continue after verse 8 as follows (with trifling variations): "But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation." All of these witnesses except it k also continue with verses 9-20.
(3) The traditional ending of Mark, so familiar through the AV and other translations of the Textus Receptus, is present in the vast number of witnesses, including A C D K W X Δ Θ Π Ψ 099 0112 f 13 28 33 al. The earliest patristic witnesses to part or all of the long ending are Irenaeus and the Diatessaron. It is not certain whether Justin Martyr was acquainted with the passage; in his Apology (i.45) he includes five words that occur, in a different sequence, in ver. 20. (του λογου του ισχυρου ον απο ιερουσαλημ οι αποστολοι αυτου εξελθοντες πανταχου εκηρυξαν).
(4) In the fourth century the traditional ending also circulated, according to testimony preserved by Jerome, in an expanded form, preserved today in one Greek manuscript. Codex Washingtonianus includes the following after ver. 14: "And they excused themselves, saying, 'This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal thy righteousness now — thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, 'The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was delivered over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven.' "

How should the evidence of each of these endings be evaluated?
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-22-2019, 7:18 PM
Wordupmybrotha's Avatar
Wordupmybrotha Wordupmybrotha is offline
From anotha motha
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 4,271
iTrader: 58 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMCLAP View Post
No one believes the Bible we read now in infallible or inerrent.
I do
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-23-2019, 7:27 AM
ACfixer's Avatar
ACfixer ACfixer is offline
Global Warming Enthusiast
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: KAPV-L35 SoCal
Posts: 2,616
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMCLAP View Post
Sorry friend. The more manuscripts we find the more it is clear that there is no variation. We have enough first and second century scripts to make an entire new testament that translated to exactly what we have now.
Thank you.

You either believe in a creator, one with more wisdom and strength and love than anything we can even imagine.... or you don't. Yes, man wrote the Bible down on paper, just as God told him to and the same has protected the integrity throughout history.

Don't believe it? Fine, this is American and I will take up arms to protect your right to believe as you choose... but it doesn't change anything. And certainly a Hollywood movie made by rabid liberals will never affect my faith in any way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wordupmybrotha View Post
I do
I do as well. RAMCLAP, if you believe as your say the the Bible is complete and unaltered... I am not sure why you would question it's contents. If God can create the heavens and earth, he can certainly part one of the smaller bodies of water to allow his chosen people to escape captivity and fulfill his promise.
__________________


Buy made in USA whenever possible.

Last edited by ACfixer; 07-23-2019 at 7:31 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-23-2019, 8:31 AM
RAMCLAP's Avatar
RAMCLAP RAMCLAP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orange, CA
Posts: 2,209
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I dont know what made you think I question the contents of the Scriptures.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 07-23-2019, 9:07 AM
ACfixer's Avatar
ACfixer ACfixer is offline
Global Warming Enthusiast
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: KAPV-L35 SoCal
Posts: 2,616
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMCLAP View Post
I dont know what made you think I question the contents of the Scriptures.
My apologies, I was going off of Wordup's quote of you (post 48)... Maybe was out of context.
__________________


Buy made in USA whenever possible.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 07-23-2019, 9:47 AM
RAMCLAP's Avatar
RAMCLAP RAMCLAP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orange, CA
Posts: 2,209
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACfixer View Post
My apologies, I was going off of Wordup's quote of you (post 48)... Maybe was out of context.
Ok. No worries.
__________________
Psalm 103
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 07-23-2019, 9:49 AM
Arrieta578 Arrieta578 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 441
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACfixer View Post
Thank you.

You either believe in a creator, one with more wisdom and strength and love than anything we can even imagine.... or you don't....Don't believe it? Fine, this is American and I will take up arms to protect your right to believe as you choose...
I was thinking this very same thing last night...

Perhaps one of Jesus’ and Christianity’s lesser recognized greatest gifts to humanity is “animus liber" —“free will,” which of course is tied directly to salvation.

Ironically, it is through Jesus’ wisdom, strength and love for us that we are even able to have this discussion amicably, to look at the historical Gospels, to come to a deeper understanding of Faith and to fully realize both the Spendor and Glory of Christianity.

Could you imagine even attempting to have this discussion in almost any other culture or religion? I have a strong suspicion that many, starting with myself, would have had their heads on a pole!

I want to thank Wordup for an interesting topic to discuss and to all the other people who posted for their refreshing civility —something unfortunately rarely encountered today.

May God bless all of you!

Philippians 3:2 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourself.



Best,

Arrieta578
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 07-23-2019, 11:51 AM
Wordupmybrotha's Avatar
Wordupmybrotha Wordupmybrotha is offline
From anotha motha
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 4,271
iTrader: 58 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMCLAP View Post
I dont know what made you think I question the contents of the Scriptures.
Because of your post#46. You said no one believed that the current bible was infallible and inerrant.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 07-23-2019, 11:53 AM
NapaPlinker's Avatar
NapaPlinker NapaPlinker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 939
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It was a good movie. Did you not understand the ending??? Jesus dude

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
__________________
Pew Pew Pew.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 07-23-2019, 12:00 PM
Wordupmybrotha's Avatar
Wordupmybrotha Wordupmybrotha is offline
From anotha motha
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 4,271
iTrader: 58 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NapaPlinker View Post
It was a good movie. Did you not understand the ending??? Jesus dude

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Yes, the ending befuddled me. Was he blind? Not blind? Blind, but temporarily given sight? Perfect memory or God dictating the scripture through him? Was he paraphrasing? I don't know.

Were the movie makers subtlety casting doubt on the integrity of the current Bible? I don't know. But it seems like it.

Those are the topics on hand.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 07-23-2019, 12:58 PM
RAMCLAP's Avatar
RAMCLAP RAMCLAP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orange, CA
Posts: 2,209
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wordupmybrotha View Post
Because of your post#46. You said no one believed that the current bible was infallible and inerrant.
Probably not well stated on my part.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was formulated in 1978 by approximately 300 evangelical scholars at a conference sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, held in Chicago. The statement was designed to defend the position of Biblical inerrancy against trends toward liberal conceptions of Scripture and higher biblical criticism. The undersigners came from a variety of evangelical denominations, and include James Montgomery Boice, Carl F. H. Henry, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Francis Schaeffer, and R. C. Sproul.

On inerrancy. 1978 Chicago Statement.
"Inerrancy is the view that when all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether that relates to doctrines or ethics or to the social, physical, or life sciences.
__________________
Psalm 103
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 07-23-2019, 2:41 PM
NapaPlinker's Avatar
NapaPlinker NapaPlinker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 939
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wordupmybrotha View Post
Yes, the ending befuddled me. Was he blind? Not blind? Blind, but temporarily given sight? Perfect memory or God dictating the scripture through him? Was he paraphrasing? I don't know.



Were the movie makers subtlety casting doubt on the integrity of the current Bible? I don't know. But it seems like it.



Those are the topics on hand.
He was born blind.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
__________________
Pew Pew Pew.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 07-23-2019, 6:34 PM
Wordupmybrotha's Avatar
Wordupmybrotha Wordupmybrotha is offline
From anotha motha
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 4,271
iTrader: 58 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NapaPlinker View Post
He was born blind.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
You're quite an analyzer.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 07-23-2019, 7:04 PM
CVShooter CVShooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 680
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Arrieta578 - good work here.

The only thing I'll ad is something a fellow student pointed out years ago: that "infallible" and "inerrant" aren't the same thing. Infallibility, as she defined it, meant that the Bible's truths would not fail you -- you can count on them as a guide. Inerrant, on the other hand, suggested that it could not have occasional contradictions or textual errors. She dealt with her faith vs reason by simply accepting that the Bible could be, on occasion, in error. Yet, on the whole, it's still a reliable text for faith. Seemed reasonable to me.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 07-24-2019, 10:27 PM
NapaPlinker's Avatar
NapaPlinker NapaPlinker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 939
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wordupmybrotha View Post
You're quite an analyzer.
He was at least blind prior to the explosion. It's quite evident, his sense of hearing and smell through out the movie imply it as does the dialogue.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
__________________
Pew Pew Pew.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 07-24-2019, 10:40 PM
sealocan sealocan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 7,884
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

I'm not here for the religious discussion but if you watch the movie closely most scenes and his super style fighting are explained by him using a better than normal sense of smell or hearing that a blind person ( from birth especially ) might have but if you take a slow and careful look at this one scene...

https://youtu.be/idJklVyn5PE


He does some things that don't seem possible like for instance he knew exactly the level of the shotgun even though it hadn't made any other than it closing with a cocking sound more than a few seconds prior, also he knew exact distance to the man's arms maybe going by the guy's voice or bad smelling breath.

Lastly he looks behind him before he pulls his Kung Fu style gun grab. Although that possibly could be explained as he was just distracting the guy.

Regardless, if any ordinary blind man tried to pull something like with a suspicious stranger with a 12 gauge double barrel shotgun they would get shot either accidentally or purposely.

Last edited by sealocan; 07-24-2019 at 10:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 07-25-2019, 5:51 AM
Wordupmybrotha's Avatar
Wordupmybrotha Wordupmybrotha is offline
From anotha motha
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 4,271
iTrader: 58 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sealocan View Post
I'm not here for the religious discussion but if you watch the movie closely most scenes and his super style fighting are explained by him using a better than normal sense of smell or hearing that a blind person ( from birth especially ) might have but if you take a slow and careful look at this one scene...
So he was able to fight off groups attackers from all different angles - those with a chainsaw, guns, and swords. He was able to parry their attacks by the smell and sound of the angle of attack? He's able to shoot people at long distances by using sonar, like Daredevil?
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 07-25-2019, 4:15 PM
mossy's Avatar
mossy mossy is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: equestria
Posts: 6,362
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wordupmybrotha View Post
So he was able to fight off groups attackers from all different angles - those with a chainsaw, guns, and swords. He was able to parry their attacks by the smell and sound of the angle of attack? He's able to shoot people at long distances by using sonar, like Daredevil?
It's called plot armor.
__________________
best troll thread in calguns history
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=406739



Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Not at all. Trump is a loser and will lose amazingly on Tuesday. It's going to be so big, we are all going to be sick and tired of how much he loses on Tuesday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
Nah, no sense in replying to the personal attacks/baiting.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 08-06-2019, 3:57 PM
Blov Blov is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 22
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrieta578 View Post
Furthermore, there are no 1st Century fragmentary manuscripts of the New Testament (0-100 AD). The earliest fragmentary manuscript is P52 which dates to the first half of the 2nd Century. There are a total of 4 fragmentary manuscripts that can be securely dated to the 2nd Century (100-200 AD). The other 7 fragmentary manuscripts dates are contested and dated 2-3rd Century. It is not until the 3rd Century where we have portions large enough of fragmentary texts to even put a story together. That is to say, a conglomeration of just 2nd Century fragments strung together without the context of later date texts would be meaningless.

The oldest complete version of the New Testament of course is the Septuagint and is from the 4th Century (300-400 AD).

None of this should be new, contested, or surprising. Evangelical scholars have known about this issue for YEARS.
Major miss on the Septuagint LXX. It's the Greek translation of the old testament from the 2nd and 3rd BC. You may be referencing codex sinaiticus or vaticanus. If you want to discuss new testament mss you need see Kurt and Barbara Aland for background on the Nestle/Aland Greek new testament.

Upon further reflection I believe you are referring to the Masoretic text. This was old testament only and introduced vowel points into Hebrew writing.

Last edited by Blov; 08-06-2019 at 5:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 08-31-2019, 9:37 PM
TrailerparkTrash's Avatar
TrailerparkTrash TrailerparkTrash is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Democratic Peopleís Republic of Gavin
Posts: 2,861
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Book of Eli? Itís non-canonical, therefore it canít be remotely compared to the Bible, The Word of God.

Itís a movie.
__________________



ďPay attention. Iím educating you and Iím using small words.Ē -Mark Levin

-Life member, NRA
-ΙΧΘΥΣ <><
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 09-01-2019, 2:00 AM
gumby gumby is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Westminster, Orange County
Posts: 1,987
iTrader: 86 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrailerparkTrash View Post
Book of Eli? Itís non-canonical, therefore it canít be remotely compared to the Bible, The Word of God.

Itís a movie.
This^^^^^^^^^^
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 09-01-2019, 6:05 AM
Wordupmybrotha's Avatar
Wordupmybrotha Wordupmybrotha is offline
From anotha motha
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 4,271
iTrader: 58 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrailerparkTrash View Post
Book of Eli? Itís non-canonical, therefore it canít be remotely compared to the Bible, The Word of God.

Itís a movie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gumby View Post
This^^^^^^^^^^
It's apparent you guys didn't watch the movie. Keep it that way. It's not worth the time.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 09-01-2019, 12:11 PM
gumby gumby is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Westminster, Orange County
Posts: 1,987
iTrader: 86 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wordupmybrotha View Post
It's apparent you guys didn't watch the movie. Keep it that way. It's not worth the time.
I watched it.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 09-04-2019, 4:06 PM
ilikeguns's Avatar
ilikeguns ilikeguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 761
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrieta578 View Post
Furthermore, there are no 1st Century fragmentary manuscripts of the New Testament (0-100 AD). The earliest fragmentary manuscript is P52 which dates to the first half of the 2nd Century. There are a total of 4 fragmentary manuscripts that can be securely dated to the 2nd Century (100-200 AD). The other 7 fragmentary manuscripts dates are contested and dated 2-3rd Century. It is not until the 3rd Century where we have portions large enough of fragmentary texts to even put a story together. That is to say, a conglomeration of just 2nd Century fragments strung together without the context of later date texts would be meaningless.

The oldest complete version of the New Testament of course is the Septuagint and is from the 4th Century (300-400 AD).

None of this should be new, contested, or surprising. Evangelical scholars have known about this issue for YEARS.
You are correct in mentioning p52. Early date closer to 90AD correct? Remember that it is a copy of a copy of a copy, which puts us closer to the lifetime of John, the author.
I will add early church Father documents point to Matthew and Mark (through Peter) as authors of their professed accounts. As one example, Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis wrote in 125 AD about their gospels specifically and was taught by John himself earlier in his life.
Also, 1 Corinthians 15, undisputedly (basically) written by Paul gives a clear oral tradition of the gospel within 15 years of the life of Christ!
And there are people out there who have memorized books larger than the Bible. Look up the forums personally Iíve only memorized the letter to the Galatians and 10 chapters of Psalms. But Iíve only been at it in my spare time over the last year
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 09-05-2019, 6:03 AM
RAMCLAP's Avatar
RAMCLAP RAMCLAP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orange, CA
Posts: 2,209
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilikeguns View Post
You are correct in mentioning p52. Early date closer to 90AD correct? Remember that it is a copy of a copy of a copy, which puts us closer to the lifetime of John, the author.
I will add early church Father documents point to Matthew and Mark (through Peter) as authors of their professed accounts. As one example, Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis wrote in 125 AD about their gospels specifically and was taught by John himself earlier in his life.
Also, 1 Corinthians 15, undisputedly (basically) written by Paul gives a clear oral tradition of the gospel within 15 years of the life of Christ!
And there are people out there who have memorized books larger than the Bible. Look up the forums personally Iíve only memorized the letter to the Galatians and 10 chapters of Psalms. But Iíve only been at it in my spare time over the last year
Except thaat the Septugint is from BC and only contains the Old Testament not the New.
__________________
Psalm 103
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 09-05-2019, 6:39 AM
ilikeguns's Avatar
ilikeguns ilikeguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 761
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMCLAP View Post
Except thaat the Septugint is from BC and only contains the Old Testament not the New.
...that is a correct statement. Greek translation of the Hebrew canon. The Hebrew canon which was completed 3rd or 4th century BC, is backed up by an astounding find called the “silver scrolls” which are pre-Babylonian captivity! It contains a few verses from Numbers, which really only speaks to the Pentateuch.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 09-05-2019, 7:19 AM
RAMCLAP's Avatar
RAMCLAP RAMCLAP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orange, CA
Posts: 2,209
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilikeguns View Post
...that is a correct statement. Greek translation of the Hebrew canon. The Hebrew canon which was completed 3rd or 4th century BC, is backed up by an astounding find called the ďsilver scrollsĒ which are pre-Babylonian captivity! It contains a few verses from Numbers, which really only speaks to the Pentateuch.
That is true as well.
__________________
Psalm 103
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:23 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.