I have been in a chat over this, and referred to watch your vid. I have been looking up bible sources for days now. I have found that the oldest fragment of any bible is a piece about the size of a credit card called p52. It dates to about 900 years after the life of Jesus. What would you say about a book that was recopied by hand, for many hundreds of years, in several languages, and through several rulers twisting to their need/want? Would you call it reliable? Serious question? not a test
@pumpstations There's a lot I could say here, but I'll great straight for the heart of it: whoever it was that told you about this p52 and that it dated from 900 years after Christ's life and is our oldest fragment of any Bible was, to be blunt, full of crap. We have complete Bibles that date from the early 300s, manuscripts from even earlier, and many fragments from even earlier than those. They all agree with each other in all but minor details in spite of widespread geographic distribution.
@pumpstations Look up the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Vaticanus; they are our three oldest complete Bibles. The Dead Sea Scrolls are our oldest complete texts of the Old Testament in Hebrew (there are earlier fragments, however); interestingly, our oldest complete texts before the discovery of the DSS were from the later Middle Ages -- the DSS match them consistently indicating the veracity of the manuscript traditions.
Lesson here: Don't believe everything you read online!
@davidpwithun I did not say complete bible, I had only quoted what I had found, As the oldest fragment of ANY bible. Granted, I misquoted. The p52 is the oldest piece of any new testament document. Since Jesus did not enter the bible till the new testament, That was part of the discussion. Yes the DSS do go further back, and similar with the OT. but it is still OT material. Thanks, Please look up Rylands Library Papyrus P52. you will be surprised. It's not crap.Thanks again, good vid.
@pumpstations I'm familiar with P52, but the dating your give for it is incorrect; that's what I was attempting to say, though I don't think I said it every well. You're right that P52 is the earliest fragment of any New Testament document; however, it dates from about 90 years after Christ's life, not 900 years after. Most scholars place it in the early second century, somewhere between the years 100 and 150. There's a big difference between 900 years and 90 years!
@davidpwithun Sorry, I must have hit a second "0" and not noticed. Although 90 is the earliest possible dating. The discussion I was in held that even that is enough time to begin to have a document begin to change from original form. Then as the centuries, rulers, mistranslations (buy accident and on purpose), also in translating into different language problems.
What do we have left? And how can we be sure of any validity.
@pumpstations I apologize for my apparent overreaction in that case! There's a lot that we can talk about here; I'll break my response down point by point to make it easier to follow. I'll respond here now, but I think it might be a bit easier on both of us (given YouTube's character limit per comment) to continue this by e-mail. If you're interested in doing so, please e-mail your reply to my comments here to davidpwithun@yahoo.com
@pumpstations 1 (continued) ... life of Christ, but we have to remember that that Gospel of John, of which P52 is a fragment, was not written during Christ's life. Rather, John's Gospel was written in the last decade of the first century; this means that P52 dates from only a couple of decades at most after the original writing of the Gospel.
2. While P52 is the oldest manuscript fragment, there are a plethora of quotes from the Gospels and from Paul's letters throughout the writings of early...
@pumpstations 2 (continued) ... Christians which predate P52. For instance, St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing in 107, quotes from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and Paul's letters Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 Thessalonians, as well as the Acts of the Apostles. His writings are but a single example of this.
3. From a very early point there was widespread geographic, linguistic, and ideological distribution of the New Testament books. The fact that we find such agreement...
@pumpstations 3 (continued) ... amongst them attests to their reliability and accurate preservation of the contents of the books that would eventually come to make up the New Testament. The vast majority of differences to be found between the various manuscripts and manuscript traditions are simple errors of spelling, misplacement of words, etc. The very few instances in which we find some significant difference in the text, it can easily be seen for the aberration it is by observing that no ...
@pumpstations 3 (continued) ...other manuscripts and/or manuscript traditions contain the aberration. In other words, if we have a hundred manuscripts of Matthew (we actually have many, many more, but this is a demonstrative example, not historical information) which have origins over the widespread geographic area of early Christianity, it is easy to see that, where the manuscripts from Alexandria differ from the rest they are clearly corrupt. Corruptions are not very difficult to spot.
@pumpstations 4. There are absolutely zero textual variations, amongst the thousands we have(most of which, as I already pointed out, are spelling errors, etc.)which cast doubt upon the historical veracity of events such as the Resurrection;in other words, that a word may have changed here and there is no reason to say that the entire text is corrupted and we can never be sure about it.That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.The Resurrection is not a textual variant;no scholar thinks so.
@pumpstations 5. As for "centuries, rulers, mistranslations": Given that our earliest complete manuscripts as well as a vast plethora of early Christian quotations are well before "centuries, rulers, [and] mistranslations" could have had any play on the text, considering those subjects is of no value to this discussion.
There's quite a bit more I could say on this topic, but I will allow you a chance to reply.As I said, I prefer to do so by e-mail if that is okay to you. Looking forward to it!
Lies, Deceit and trickery ... are not to be found in this video. Well done again, David. The video looks like a higher res this time. Did you do something different?
Thank you. This is very helpful to me. Its a cause for great concern how many have bought into zeitgeist and the like without critically analyzing the real historical context. I was once extremely overwhelmed by all the misinformation out there, being a "baby Christian." Thank you again for bringing clarity. God bless you!
@SonistheFatherofMan Right; now we have to evaluate its reliability as a primary source. So: 1. When was it written? 2. How many years after the events that it purports to report on was it written? 3. By whom? 4. What were the biases and agendas of the author(s)? 5. What relation did the author(s) have to the event(s) and individual(s) he/they describe? 6. etc...
@davidpwithun There was a definite bias toward Jesus by the Sanhedrin. It could be viewed as an attempt to discredit Him but then again, as a Christian, I'm biased as well.
Ockham's Razor does not actually say the simplest explanation is the best. It says the explanation with the least number of assumptions is the best. I believe he, himself, said that "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." Still, I suppose the common rephrasing of it suffices.
@danielzero Fine, whatever :P What's next, Daniel: you going to correct me on calling it "Ockham's Razor" and say that I should have called it "William's Razor" because Ockham wasn't the guy's name -- just the name of the city he was from? ;)
The wording he gave is actually a more precise translation of Ockham's (or Williiam's, whichever you prefer) original language. Plus, you should take nitpicking as a compliment, as that indicates your video wasn't a total fail.
I have been in a chat over this, and referred to watch your vid. I have been looking up bible sources for days now. I have found that the oldest fragment of any bible is a piece about the size of a credit card called p52. It dates to about 900 years after the life of Jesus. What would you say about a book that was recopied by hand, for many hundreds of years, in several languages, and through several rulers twisting to their need/want? Would you call it reliable? Serious question? not a test
pumpstations 1 year ago
@pumpstations There's a lot I could say here, but I'll great straight for the heart of it: whoever it was that told you about this p52 and that it dated from 900 years after Christ's life and is our oldest fragment of any Bible was, to be blunt, full of crap. We have complete Bibles that date from the early 300s, manuscripts from even earlier, and many fragments from even earlier than those. They all agree with each other in all but minor details in spite of widespread geographic distribution.
davidpwithun 1 year ago
@pumpstations Look up the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Vaticanus; they are our three oldest complete Bibles. The Dead Sea Scrolls are our oldest complete texts of the Old Testament in Hebrew (there are earlier fragments, however); interestingly, our oldest complete texts before the discovery of the DSS were from the later Middle Ages -- the DSS match them consistently indicating the veracity of the manuscript traditions.
Lesson here: Don't believe everything you read online!
davidpwithun 1 year ago
@davidpwithun I did not say complete bible, I had only quoted what I had found, As the oldest fragment of ANY bible. Granted, I misquoted. The p52 is the oldest piece of any new testament document. Since Jesus did not enter the bible till the new testament, That was part of the discussion. Yes the DSS do go further back, and similar with the OT. but it is still OT material. Thanks, Please look up Rylands Library Papyrus P52. you will be surprised. It's not crap.Thanks again, good vid.
pumpstations 1 year ago
@pumpstations I'm familiar with P52, but the dating your give for it is incorrect; that's what I was attempting to say, though I don't think I said it every well. You're right that P52 is the earliest fragment of any New Testament document; however, it dates from about 90 years after Christ's life, not 900 years after. Most scholars place it in the early second century, somewhere between the years 100 and 150. There's a big difference between 900 years and 90 years!
davidpwithun 1 year ago
@davidpwithun Sorry, I must have hit a second "0" and not noticed. Although 90 is the earliest possible dating. The discussion I was in held that even that is enough time to begin to have a document begin to change from original form. Then as the centuries, rulers, mistranslations (buy accident and on purpose), also in translating into different language problems.
What do we have left? And how can we be sure of any validity.
pumpstations 1 year ago
@pumpstations I apologize for my apparent overreaction in that case! There's a lot that we can talk about here; I'll break my response down point by point to make it easier to follow. I'll respond here now, but I think it might be a bit easier on both of us (given YouTube's character limit per comment) to continue this by e-mail. If you're interested in doing so, please e-mail your reply to my comments here to davidpwithun@yahoo.com
Now, jumping in:
1. P52 may date from 90 years after the ...
davidpwithun 1 year ago
@pumpstations 1 (continued) ... life of Christ, but we have to remember that that Gospel of John, of which P52 is a fragment, was not written during Christ's life. Rather, John's Gospel was written in the last decade of the first century; this means that P52 dates from only a couple of decades at most after the original writing of the Gospel.
2. While P52 is the oldest manuscript fragment, there are a plethora of quotes from the Gospels and from Paul's letters throughout the writings of early...
davidpwithun 1 year ago
@pumpstations 2 (continued) ... Christians which predate P52. For instance, St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing in 107, quotes from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and Paul's letters Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 Thessalonians, as well as the Acts of the Apostles. His writings are but a single example of this.
3. From a very early point there was widespread geographic, linguistic, and ideological distribution of the New Testament books. The fact that we find such agreement...
davidpwithun 1 year ago
@pumpstations 3 (continued) ... amongst them attests to their reliability and accurate preservation of the contents of the books that would eventually come to make up the New Testament. The vast majority of differences to be found between the various manuscripts and manuscript traditions are simple errors of spelling, misplacement of words, etc. The very few instances in which we find some significant difference in the text, it can easily be seen for the aberration it is by observing that no ...
davidpwithun 1 year ago
@pumpstations 3 (continued) ...other manuscripts and/or manuscript traditions contain the aberration. In other words, if we have a hundred manuscripts of Matthew (we actually have many, many more, but this is a demonstrative example, not historical information) which have origins over the widespread geographic area of early Christianity, it is easy to see that, where the manuscripts from Alexandria differ from the rest they are clearly corrupt. Corruptions are not very difficult to spot.
davidpwithun 1 year ago
@pumpstations 4. There are absolutely zero textual variations, amongst the thousands we have(most of which, as I already pointed out, are spelling errors, etc.)which cast doubt upon the historical veracity of events such as the Resurrection;in other words, that a word may have changed here and there is no reason to say that the entire text is corrupted and we can never be sure about it.That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.The Resurrection is not a textual variant;no scholar thinks so.
davidpwithun 1 year ago
@pumpstations 5. As for "centuries, rulers, mistranslations": Given that our earliest complete manuscripts as well as a vast plethora of early Christian quotations are well before "centuries, rulers, [and] mistranslations" could have had any play on the text, considering those subjects is of no value to this discussion.
There's quite a bit more I could say on this topic, but I will allow you a chance to reply.As I said, I prefer to do so by e-mail if that is okay to you. Looking forward to it!
davidpwithun 1 year ago
Get a beard dude! lol. All the knowledge I almost see you with a beard!
onef8th 1 year ago 2
Christ is in our midst! brother. Arius got butchered in the courtyard by our people. and he is now in hell. Go "of one substance"!
holypsychopath 1 year ago
Lies, Deceit and trickery ... are not to be found in this video. Well done again, David. The video looks like a higher res this time. Did you do something different?
sapperbdl 1 year ago 2
Thank you. This is very helpful to me. Its a cause for great concern how many have bought into zeitgeist and the like without critically analyzing the real historical context. I was once extremely overwhelmed by all the misinformation out there, being a "baby Christian." Thank you again for bringing clarity. God bless you!
dtewis 1 year ago 2
You look like a zombie in this video's thumbnail.
StutteringDave 1 year ago 2
@StutteringDave Yes, I do :) That's why I kept that one haha
davidpwithun 1 year ago
Just an bit of an update: the limit to videos is now 15 minutes.
jcrebel18 1 year ago
@jcrebel18 I will keep that in mind; thank you very much for letting me know!
davidpwithun 1 year ago
Have you ever read the accounts of Jesus in the Talmud? Its the total opposite of the New Testament.
SonistheFatherofMan 1 year ago
@SonistheFatherofMan Did you watch this video?
davidpwithun 1 year ago
@davidpwithun Yes. The Talmud would be a primary source.
SonistheFatherofMan 1 year ago
@SonistheFatherofMan Right; now we have to evaluate its reliability as a primary source. So: 1. When was it written? 2. How many years after the events that it purports to report on was it written? 3. By whom? 4. What were the biases and agendas of the author(s)? 5. What relation did the author(s) have to the event(s) and individual(s) he/they describe? 6. etc...
davidpwithun 1 year ago
@davidpwithun There was a definite bias toward Jesus by the Sanhedrin. It could be viewed as an attempt to discredit Him but then again, as a Christian, I'm biased as well.
SonistheFatherofMan 1 year ago
Ockham's Razor does not actually say the simplest explanation is the best. It says the explanation with the least number of assumptions is the best. I believe he, himself, said that "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." Still, I suppose the common rephrasing of it suffices.
danielzero 1 year ago
@danielzero Fine, whatever :P What's next, Daniel: you going to correct me on calling it "Ockham's Razor" and say that I should have called it "William's Razor" because Ockham wasn't the guy's name -- just the name of the city he was from? ;)
davidpwithun 1 year ago
@davidpwithun
The wording he gave is actually a more precise translation of Ockham's (or Williiam's, whichever you prefer) original language. Plus, you should take nitpicking as a compliment, as that indicates your video wasn't a total fail.
jcrebel18 1 year ago
@jcrebel18 Daniel and I are friends; I was kidding with him ;)
davidpwithun 1 year ago