Book of Eli

[NapaPlinker]

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

[sealocan]

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.

[Wordupmybrotha]

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?

[mossy]

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.

[Blov]

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.

[TrailerparkTrash]

[gumby]

This^^^^^^^^^^

[Wordupmybrotha]

This^^^^^^^^^^

It's apparent you guys didn't watch the movie. Keep it that way. It's not worth the time.

[gumby]

It's apparent you guys didn't watch the movie. Keep it that way. It's not worth the time.

I watched it.

[ilikeguns]

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.

[RAMCLAP]

Except thaat the Septugint is from BC and only contains the Old Testament not the New.

[ilikeguns]

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.

[RAMCLAP]

That is true as well.

[GM4spd]

Yes, nailed the incorrect view of the current Bible.

[Spaffo]

As to his ability to memorize the entire bible, I think there have been several people that did that in the past. I remember reading about it as a teenager.
I looked at his abilities the same way I watched the Zatoichi movies about a blind swordsman, with a grain of salt. Not expected to be a documentary.