stemelbow Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: They mean nothing in terms of faith, IMO. And again, what do you mean when you're talking about manuscript evidence, let alone "greater than any other ancient book in the world"? I find that a very strange assertion. I'm even more intrigued with his claim here: " Almost all biblical scholars agree that most of the New Testament documents were written before the close of the close of the first century (or before the destruction of Jerusalem for that matter). " I think he's got that exactly backwards, but I'd be eager to learn something new if he's right.
jkwilliams Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 2 minutes ago, snowflake said: http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript Here is a link to the Center for the Study of New Testament manuscripts. One of many places worldwide that protect and preserve ancient NT papyri. So, you're saying that because the manuscripts date to approximately 300 years after the events in question, they can be considered unaltered from the original? We don't have originals, unless you know something I don't.
ERMD Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 (edited) 31 minutes ago, snowflake said: I am not saying that because manuscripts are old, they are true, not at all. What I am saying is that we can compare the thousands of ancient New Testament texts to see IF they have been changed or altered....are they consistent with what they are saying. If they are consistent then that should be considered "evidence" that the people who wrote the manuscripts down believed them. We are able to compare today's N.T. with those ancient manuscripts and they do not appear to have been altered. I agree that it does not "prove" the stories true. But it does give "evidence" for the historicity of the stories and the people and places described. Do we have any B.O.M. texts?......no we don't. The most "ancient" NT manuscripts in your source were written/copied over 1000 years after the fact. The older ones are of the Septuagint and other OT writings. One thing they cannot be used to "prove" are any of the events which were miraculous. I do not doubt those things occurred, but the existence of a manuscript cannot be used to substantiate them. Edited June 9, 2016 by ERMD 3
Popular Post bluebell Posted June 9, 2016 Popular Post Posted June 9, 2016 34 minutes ago, snowflake said: Wow, archeology and manuscripts mean nothing? Manuscripts describing people, timelines, genealogies, places.....these mean nothing? If you are willing to dismiss the N.T. texts as nothing then you must also dismiss all other ancient records as nothing. The manuscript evidence for the N.T. is far greater than any other ancient book in the world. There is superior criteria for affirming this than any other book. But to you bluebell that means nothing............ You don't know what you are talking about. Yes, in regards to the doctrines and theology of Christ, the manuscripts and archaeology mean nothing. There are a lot of manuscripts supporting pagan religions. The oldest manuscripts we have are Hindu and Egyptian. Does that mean anything to you? I'm guessing not. Don't base your testimony of the bible on archaeology and manuscripts. It's very shaky ground. 7
jkwilliams Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 1 minute ago, bluebell said: You don't know what you are talking about. Yes, in regards to the doctrines and theology of Christ, the manuscripts and archaeology mean nothing. There are a lot of manuscripts supporting pagan religions. The oldest manuscripts we have are Hindu and Egyptian. Does that mean anything to you? I'm guessing not. Don't base your testimony of the bible on archaeology and manuscripts. It's very shaky ground. And pretty fragile parchment, too. Honestly, I think people say such things because it makes faith in the Bible sound more grounded or rational than faith in the Book of Mormon. "Oh, yeah? At least our book is old!"
snowflake Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 34 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I'm even more intrigued with his claim here: " Almost all biblical scholars agree that most of the New Testament documents were written before the close of the close of the first century (or before the destruction of Jerusalem for that matter). " I think he's got that exactly backwards, but I'd be eager to learn something new if he's right. I guess I said that incorrectly, biblical scholars agree that the N.T. books (The Gospels, Paul's writings, book of Peter, book of James etc. were written before the destruction of Jerusalem by Nero in 70 a.d.
bluebell Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: And pretty fragile parchment, too. Honestly, I think people say such things because it makes faith in the Bible sound more grounded or rational than faith in the Book of Mormon. "Oh, yeah? At least our book is old!" I think that too. It's also really easy to repeat these kinds of claims without having any idea if they are actually true or not. Mormons do it too with some things (faith promoting rumor and all that). But old manuscripts definitely don't make a religious claim more likely to be true. 1
JLHPROF Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Being old is no guarantee of factuality. 3 minutes ago, snowflake said: I guess I said that incorrectly, biblical scholars agree that the N.T. books (The Gospels, Paul's writings, book of Peter, book of James etc. were written before the destruction of Jerusalem by Nero in 70 a.d. 1
jkwilliams Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 4 minutes ago, bluebell said: I think that too. It's also really easy to repeat these kinds of claims without having any idea if they are actually true or not. Mormons do it too with some things (faith promoting rumor and all that). But old manuscripts definitely don't make a religious claim more likely to be true. No, they don't, any more than the existence of London circa 1850 makes Oliver Twist a true story. 3
thesometimesaint Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 7 minutes ago, snowflake said: I guess I said that incorrectly, biblical scholars agree that the N.T. books (The Gospels, Paul's writings, book of Peter, book of James etc. were written before the destruction of Jerusalem by Nero in 70 a.d. Of which we have no original source.
thesometimesaint Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: No, they don't, any more than the existence of London circa 1850 makes Oliver Twist a true story. True, but circumstantial evidence can be used to support the idea that a Oliver Twist type character could have existed. I think we can agree that an itinerant preacher named Yeshua bar Yosef probably existed some 2000 years ago in ancient Palestine. Whether he is Yeshua bar El is a matter of faith.
jkwilliams Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said: True, but circumstantial evidence can be used to support the idea that a Oliver Twist type character could have existed. I think we can agree that an itinerant preacher named Yeshua bar Yosef probably existed some 2000 years ago in ancient Palestine. Whether he is Yeshua bar El is a matter of faith. My point was, however, that a book's antiquity does not make its story true. And, despite what snowflake said, no one I have ever known rests their faith on a text's manuscript history. 1
Ahab Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 (edited) The value of scriptures is in what they are saying. They tell us who said what about what and about who. They don't tell us if what they are saying is true or not, though. We rely on faith (an assurance) from God to know the truth in what the scriptures tell us. A personal witness from God who is telling us what the scriptures are saying and how what the scriptures are saying is true. Edited June 9, 2016 by Ahab
stemelbow Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 1 hour ago, snowflake said: I guess I said that incorrectly, biblical scholars agree that the N.T. books (The Gospels, Paul's writings, book of Peter, book of James etc. were written before the destruction of Jerusalem by Nero in 70 a.d. Good. I figured you meant something more like that. As it is the oldest manuscripts of the NT date much later. This isn't a bad thing, it is what it is. The BoM is a different story but it is what it is too. I'd agree if you want to suggest there is more evidence that the Bible was written anciently. There's no way to dispute that. 1
snowflake Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 1 hour ago, bluebell said: 2 hours ago, snowflake said: Wow, archeology and manuscripts mean nothing? Manuscripts describing people, timelines, genealogies, places.....these mean nothing? If you are willing to dismiss the N.T. texts as nothing then you must also dismiss all other ancient records as nothing. The manuscript evidence for the N.T. is far greater than any other ancient book in the world. There is superior criteria for affirming this than any other book. But to you bluebell that means nothing............ You don't know what you are talking about. Yes, in regards to the doctrines and theology of Christ, the manuscripts and archaeology mean nothing. There are a lot of manuscripts supporting pagan religions. The oldest manuscripts we have are Hindu and Egyptian. Does that mean anything to you? I'm guessing not. Don't base your testimony of the bible on archaeology and manuscripts. It's very shaky ground. Acts 17King James Version (KJV) 17 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. 4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few. Here in Acts 17 Paul reasons with the Jews out of the scriptures........telling them about Jesus.....and some believed based on the scriptures and the reasoning of Paul. Notice here how Paul never says "pray about it to know truth". He uses the scriptures themselves as evidence for belief.
ERMD Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 (edited) 19 minutes ago, snowflake said: Acts 17King James Version (KJV) 17 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. 4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few. Here in Acts 17 Paul reasons with the Jews out of the scriptures........telling them about Jesus.....and some believed based on the scriptures and the reasoning of Paul. Notice here how Paul never says "pray about it to know truth". He uses the scriptures themselves as evidence for belief. deleted not worth it Edited June 9, 2016 by ERMD
stemelbow Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 17 minutes ago, snowflake said: Acts 17King James Version (KJV) 17 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. 4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few. Here in Acts 17 Paul reasons with the Jews out of the scriptures........telling them about Jesus.....and some believed based on the scriptures and the reasoning of Paul. Notice here how Paul never says "pray about it to know truth". He uses the scriptures themselves as evidence for belief. What scriptures do you think Paul used? Scriptures that speak to the Jews, no less? Why would Paul say pray about your scriptures? if they already saw them as scriptures? I'm struggling trying to follow any point you're trying to make. Are you saying people should pray to God about finding truth?
Ahab Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 11 minutes ago, snowflake said: Acts 17King James Version (KJV) 17 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. 4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few. Here in Acts 17 Paul reasons with the Jews out of the scriptures........telling them about Jesus.....and some believed based on the scriptures and the reasoning of Paul. Notice here how Paul never says "pray about it to know truth". He uses the scriptures themselves as evidence for belief. They had faith in those scriptures (meaning they were sure those scriptures were true) and Paul was simply showing them, through reason, that what he was telling them was in harmony with those scriptures. If those people had had faith in some old books on Greek mythology, though, it probably wouldn't have worked out so well. But it was good for them to have faith in what those scriptures were saying because those scriptural records (what we now call the Old Testament) were useful in helping them to know more about Jesus and his mission that Paul was familiar with. Just as it is good for people to have faith in what the scriptures are saying when a missionary, like Paul, shares more about Jesus and his mission from the Book of Mormon. Good missionaries build on what others already know is true, trying to teach others even more that is true through reason. Not that reason alone will always lead to faith (an assurance) of what is true, but it usually helps to teach what is reasonable while hoping God will give others faith to feel sure about what is true.
snowflake Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 54 minutes ago, snowflake said: You don't know what you are talking about. Yes, in regards to the doctrines and theology of Christ, the manuscripts and archaeology mean nothing. There are a lot of manuscripts supporting pagan religions. The oldest manuscripts we have are Hindu and Egyptian. Does that mean anything to you? I'm guessing not. Don't base your testimony of the bible on archaeology and manuscripts. It's very shaky ground. Excuse me, in regards to doctrines and theology of Christ manuscripts mean nothing? The manuscripts is the New Testament, evidence for the N.T. , where else would one learn about Christ than by reading the Bible? 1
JLHPROF Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 8 minutes ago, snowflake said: where else would one learn about Christ than by reading the Bible? Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Quote ,in regards to doctrines and theology of Christ manuscripts mean nothing? The manuscripts is the New Testament, evidence for the N.T. , Of course the NT manuscripts mean something. The point is, they no more prove the history of Christ than the Book of Mormon proves the history of the Nephites. Either could have been made up as fiction. Just having "old manuscripts" doesn't make their contents one iota more reliable as history. They could be someone's novel. 1
Meadowchik Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 Not so long ago we met a former Eastern Orthodox monk who apparently translated books from the Dead Sea Scrolls before they were supposed to be available for translation. He alludes to "deals" between the EEC and the RCC which would conveniently edit the content of the translations. His testimony of God and Christ, however, are still intact. I think it may be easier for older religions to ignore the uncomfortable past of tgeir oen faith while scrutinizing our more recent, observable problems. In all this I think one can find a better understanding of the revelatory relationship between God and His children. 2
bluebell Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 2 hours ago, snowflake said: Excuse me, in regards to doctrines and theology of Christ manuscripts mean nothing? The manuscripts is the New Testament, evidence for the N.T. , where else would one learn about Christ than by reading the Bible? JLH explained what I meant. In terms of proving whether or not the spiritual claims are true, the manuscripts and archaeology mean nothing. As i've said (about 3 times now) before, there are archaeology and manuscripts concerning Zeus, yet that doesn't provide any legitimacy to the Greek pantheon. As far as the religious claims of Greek paganism, the manuscripts and archaeology prove nothing, they mean nothing. The same is true for every other religion as well, christianity included. 1
bluebell Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 3 hours ago, snowflake said: Here in Acts 17 Paul reasons with the Jews out of the scriptures........telling them about Jesus.....and some believed based on the scriptures and the reasoning of Paul. Notice here how Paul never says "pray about it to know truth". He uses the scriptures themselves as evidence for belief. Scriptures are incredibly important, but they are not more important than the witness of the Holy Ghost. 4
JLHPROF Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 3 minutes ago, bluebell said: Scriptures are incredibly important, but they are not more important than the witness of the Holy Ghost. Brigham Young: Joseph Once told me to go to his own house to attend a meeting with him. He said that He would not go without me. I went and Hiram Preached upon the Bible Book of Mormon & Covenants and said we must take them as our guide alone. He preached vary lengthy untill he nearly wearied the people out. When he Closed Joseph told me to get up. I did so. I took the Books and piled them all up on top of Each other. I then said that I would not give the ashes of a rye straw for all those books for my salvation without the living oracles. I should follow and obey the living oracles for my salvation instead of any thing else. When I got through Hyrum got up and made a Confession for not including the living Oracles. (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, Vol. 5, p. 429-30, January 27, 1860). 1
Recommended Posts