Reliability of the Manuscripts - Foundations of Apologetics

[ACCSESS247]

The new testament was not even started until 300 years after Jesus allegedly lived.

[keatris]

@ACCSESS247

On the contrary, the 4th gospel, the gospel of John, was completed before 125 A.D. (or less than a hundred years after Jesus's) death. We know this because we have a fragment of a manuscript of the gospel dating to then; in fact, though, it was probably writen way before then. The Pauline epistles, also, were completed in the 1st century. 300 years after Jesus lived is when the Church was well enough established to enforce an official canon.

[ACCSESS247]

@keatris The new testament was NOT put together until 300 years after Jesus was supposed to have lived, some of the manuscripts may have been written before this but certainly none were written while Jesus was alive or by anyone who had meet him. Paul was not even born before Jesus had died.

[keatris]

@ACCSESS247

I'm sorry but in fact the New Testament was completed long before that.

We have a manuscript fragment of John, the 4th gospel (in written order as well) dating to about 125 A.D.

Most of the books in the modern New Testament can be found in early canonical lists.

300 years after Jesus, or about 330 A.D. was when the earliest extant and (nearly) complete Bible, the Codex Vaticanus was probably writen, but the books of the New Testament way before.

[ACCSESS247]

@keatris If you do some research then you will find out the the new testament was created at the behest of the Roman Emperor Constantine by the First Council of Nicaea. Some of the manuscripts were written before (as I have already said) but they were not put together to make the new testament until 325ce

[keatris]

@ACCSESS247

I don't want to sound rude, but I think you still have some research left to do as well.

The New Testament might not have existed in one volume before around 330, but all the books in it were written before, and we have manuscript copies of most of them from before then. As for the canon of the New Testament, it was not decided at council of Nicaea. There were numerous canonical lists before them, all fairly similar; and besides, the topic was not even about the canon. TBC

[keatris]

@keatris

The canon of the New Testament started with lists such as those of the Muratorian Fragment, as early as 170. But don't take my word for it, research!

I suggest you start with Bart Erhman's "Fact and Fiction in the Da Vinci code,"

although there are plenty more.

If you want, you can find translations of the primary sources for the council of Nicaea online. You'll notice, that although there are 20 canons, none of them have to do with the New Testament Canon.

[gsschoenfeld]

I think she is smart, and forgive me for noticing, but rather attractive too. But here is my objection. People don't claim that the Iliad is literally true, word for word. Or that I will burn in hell if I don't accept their interpretation of the Iliad. Further modern bible publishers do discredit many verses in the footnotes, and they have changed things too. For example the KJV used to promote the existence of dragons and unicorns, but the modern translations do not.

[GTosca10]

Aren't the earliest Christian manuscripts from the 4th century and in Greek? Jesus spoke Aramaic. Aren't there any manuscripts in Aramaic or Hebrew?

[lionsaregay]

It is a question of how plausible it is what these manuscripts say, not a question of how many there were or whether they were changed. I would like to see her in a debate. I am reading one of her books and to be frank she is a complete nutcase.

[daleyboy77]

1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

[SuaveCapone]

in 1611 there were many books removed from the bible by the freemason so they could use the bible for control, not salvation.

[josayerdesire]

My son also asks why for every little thing even when given an answer, one day he'll trust his daddy and accept one. There is no way a men such as us, not impressive men, could ever argue with what God has revealed of himself in the scriptures. "Where were you when i made the heavens and the earth?".

[TheTruthMatters1971]

Philos: what "universal"language? There wasn't such a thing, just like there isn't now.

Everything is open to interpretation, no matter how plainly it is written. Especially when someone doesn't like what is written.

Apologetics is 'defense'. It is necessary because the gospels are subject to constant attack and skepticism.

I especially like when you start out with "your god is the dumbest...". That type of statement that betrays your emotional feelings, not any factual info.

[Philos2006]

Why would the word of the eternal god need apologetics. Wasn`t he able to make himself understood clearly ?

[nethaneld]

@Philos2006 Don't you think that true free will is not being sure whether God exists or not and then making your decision? If God was around and stopping wars, would that be free will? The harder it is to believe, as it is today because there are so many alternatives, is the truest form of free will we have. It comes down to a yes or no question without any swaying, which is faith in that what you believe is right or wrong.

[Philos2006]

Your god is the dumbest kid on the bloc. In his omnipotence he had the option to write the bible in some kind of universal language, that was understandable by all, and did not need translation nor interpretation. He could make the apostles talk in a language understood by all, didn`t he ?

[limetang]

@Philos2006 Well that would first mean creating some kind of universal language would it not? The fact is God made languages different, besides it wasnt really stupid of him to do that seeing as the bible has been succesfully translated.

[SunshineBuddha]

I think all religions are subject to a wide variety of interpretations, especially as long as they are written down on paper.

[BassP86]

That's true. However, let us remember that we cannot solely base our studies on that principle, or else it will impossible to verify any religion for truth.

[TheHonestTheist]

/watch?v=fFH0khjgA0U

[932016]

erm... would you find having one million pieces of paper relating to any other religion good evidence? nope. so why is the bible different?

one million copies of heresay is still heresay. I don't trust homers illiad any more then i trust the bible.

its age isnt the only criteria for a historical document accuracy. 5 documents written by alaxander the great himself confirmed by 5 of his enemys is worth more histrorically then one million pieces of unconfirmed heresay rife with magic

[mattisonfire]

the difference is that the accounts also meet the other criteria for historicity. including enemy testimony.

[932016]

oh rly? the crucifiction account in matthew where are the zombies/dead folk walking around in roman records? where is hte earthquake? the roman records for who was in charge of that province at the time of jesus's birth (which no moving stars were recorded by any astronomers btw..) herod had been dead by the time the governer was in charge (and serving 2 terms wasn't recorded and wouldnt help anyway btw)

the bible matches the historical record? source please cos i have loads like this

[Philos2006]

mattisonfire:--including enemy testimony--

Show that enemy testimony. Thank you !!

[mowriter]

spareaxe: since you dodged the question, I'll ask again.

Are you disputing the assertions of the speaker (scholar or otherwise) as to the quantity of manuscripts available?

I could care less what you claim you could write. Do you dispute that there are such vast numbers of available texts?

[spareaxe]

Women still relying on mens manuscripts of a non-existant God.

[mowriter]

lol, spareaxe: I take it you're not challenging the assertions of this obvious scholar on the EXISTENT (extant?) manuscripts, then?

[spareaxe]

Scholar my ass!!! I can write a better bible then the one you believe in..dude.

[ABAisSCIENCE]

This girl has a fire in her eyes.

[HumbleProclaimer]

What would be your answer to those skeptics who agree that all classical literature could have been tainted because of the mere fact of how old the documents are and therefore could not have been preserved 100% accurately?

[mattisonfire]

this doesn't seem to follow. just because p (documents were tainted) is possible does not mean not-p (documents were not tainted) is impossible.

In any case, she would not claim they are 100% accurately preserved. The documents need only be reliably passed down, even with an awareness of scribal error. estimates on textual accuracy vary tend to have an upper bound of 99.7%.

[friendlydiplomat]

99.7%?! That's quite good. Actually, that's really good!

[Philos2006]

friendlydiplomat : I always thought the word of god was 100 % accurate.

[dabonk]

Your crediting to God the copying and preservation of his inspiried word, when man has been the one responsible for that.

[JRJSRJ]

Who do you think made man do it?

[Conquer2day]

Excellent! I am so glad to see this video on Youtube. I watched a similar one on a Christian TV program... the man speaking was one of the men that had been reviewing page after page, scripture after scripture for years. This video completely supports he testimony about the validity of scripture.

Just an excellnt video, thanks so much!

[LinkD3]

awesome

[twanablevins]

Thank you so much for this.!!!!