Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It shouldn't be difficult to understand that by comparing the extant manuscript copies it is possible to identify the variants and get back to the original text.
As for Bart Ehrman, this is his statement concerning what scholars say about the issue.
"In spite of these remarkable differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy."
What is silly is your statement that what was said or implied is that ''the lack of ORIGINALS prove the copies are 99% accurate.''
What is said by the New Testament textual critics is that the original text can be mostly reconstructed by comparing the extant manuscripts and identifying and eliminating the variants, thus being able to determine what was originally written.
I provided the statements of the top textual critics, and I showed the kinds of variants that are present in the manuscripts.
The simple fact of the matter is that our present Bible is some 99 percent faithful to the original text. And you might try studying what is involved in New Testament textual criticism before dismissing it.
That is exactly what you posted---
Quote:
New Testament textual critics state that what we have is around 99 percent accurate to the original text. You might ask how can we know that since we don't have the originals with which to compare them. If we had the originals there would be no need for textual criticism which by comparing all the extant manuscript copies can recover most of the original text by identifying and filtering out what was not in the originals. In other words, what was in the original text can be found among the many extant manuscript copies. The goal of textual criticism is to identify the original text by comparing the copies and identifying the variants thus leaving the original text. We will probably never have 100 percent accuracy, but again, textual critics say we have around 99 percent accuracy.
That last one is big. Christian can argue Jesus wasn't important enough to be written about by the Romans although both Luke and Mark testify that his fame spread throughout all the region and into other countries. Yet not a single letter in the thousands of private correspondences uncovered in the period ever mentions a man from Galilee who works marvelous miracles and was crucified.
Attempting to use Bart Ehrman to cast doubt on whether Jesus existed when he wrote a book defending the fact that Jesus did exist, and in large part, used the Gospels to do so, is unwise.
'Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth.' Published in 2012.
While Ehrman doesn't believe everything in the Gospels, he recognizes them as valid historical sources.
''However else the Gospels are used---for example, in communities of faith---they must be recognized as historical sources of information.'' [p. 71]
''The (sometime) atheist opinion of the Bible as nonhistorical is no better than the (typical) fundamentalist opinion.'' [p.72]
''To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair nor scholarly.'' [p.73]
''So too the Gospels. Whatever one thinks of them as inspired scripture, they can be seen and used as significant historical sources.'' [p. 74]
Ehrman's statement in the video that the Gospels don't claim to be written by eyewitnesses is not entirely true. As I stated in post #12 of this thread, the Gospel of John does indeed claim to have been written by an eyewitness.
At the end of the Gospel of John (21:20-24) the writer is identified as the beloved disciple who leaned upon the breast of Jesus at the last supper. The words, ''This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things,'' in verse 24 refer to ''the disciple whom Jesus loved'' in verse 20. And the Gospel of John was one of the last of the New Testament letters to have been written, probably somewhere around A.D. 95.
F. F. Bruce, (1910-1990), Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, England comments,
Here we have a plain statement that the beloved disciple is the real author of the Gospel. Even if the words 'who wrote these things' do not mean that his hand held the pen, any more than the language of John 19:19 means that Pilate with his own hand wrote the inscription which was fixed to the cross, they do point to him as the guarantor of the record. 'These things' cannot be confined to the narrative of chapter 21; indeed, since chapter 21 has the nature of an epilogue, they may refer more directly to the preceding chapters than to this. The claim then, is that the witness to the truth of this Gospel is one who was in close touch with all that is described in it.
The Gospel of John, F. F. Bruce, p. 409
Dr. Edwin A. Blum writes,
The fourth Gospel ends with information about its composition. The beloved disciple is identified as the author (cf. comments on ''Authorship'' in the Introduction). The first sentence in verse 24 may have been someone other than John, but the wording sounds Johannine (cf. 19:35). These things most likely refer to the entire Gospel. The words, We know that his testimony is true, were probably written by someone other than John. They are an endorsement, perhaps by the Ephesian church, or a testimony from the early church as a whole. They were certainly in a position to know the facts better than any generation since then.
The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, p. 346
No, I did not say or even remotely imply that ''the lack of ORIGINALS prove the copies are 99% accurate.''
Once again, I said, as do the New Testament textual critics, that by comparing the extant manuscript copies, the variants can be identified and filtered out in order to determine what the original text is. Not that the original text will probably ever be 100 percent identified, but that 99 percent of the text is not in doubt by the New Testament textual critics.
The distinction between what I said and what you seem to think I said is not difficult to see.
The fact that the LINEAGE of Jesus is traced back through so many fictional characters in the Old Testament (all the way back to Adam) indicates that Jesus, at least the character portrayed in the gospels, was fictional. There is absolutely no other way to interpret it.
But I do believe that the character was based on a real person.
You're listing people who wrote 70 to 120 years AFTER Jesus died and you're trying to make us believe that just the mention of Chrestus is enough to prove that Jesus rose from the dead when NOT a single one even mentions resurrection. How gullible and naive do you think we really are??????????????????
NONE of the people you list, pneuma, mentions Jesus resurrecting. I told you this is your collective imaginations jumping to the conclusion he did just because a handful (a VERY small handful--less than 5) mentions him 100 years later.
And then someone says, "I am getting so sick of these unbelievers demanding proof!!!!!!
Oh, I just couldn't stop laughing. Like you guys wouldn't demand proof if a bunch of us came in here saying Zeus was actually Jesus....Zesus = Jesus.
Again, I'll say as many times as it needs to be said. Maybe someone will finally wake up:
From the Washington Post, as about a conservative neutral reporting source as you can get:
That's what I keep asking for and they keep dodging answering a straight question, playing a shell game with us instead.
"We have historical records"
"When were they written?"
"Well, 100 years after Jesus died, but what does that matter?"
"Are they eyewitnesses to his resurrection? Were they even in Israel at the time?"
"How could they be? They were written 100 years after he died, but again what does that matter? I'm getting so sick and tired of your skeptics demanding proof he actually lived!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Historical records of Jesus time are the gospels. Don't forget the 3 historians actually back up what is mentioned in those gospels.
And you keep changing what you asked for, you only ask for a historical record stating a man named Jesus lived. You NEVER asked for one about a resurrection.
You know I answered your inquiry, don't like it so you add something else.
If that's your standard of evidence, then hardly anyone existed prior to 1000 years ago. There is no such evidence for most ancient figures.
That correct, the is less evidence outside the OT that Moses, Abraham, Issac and Jacob existed then there is Jesus did. Richard knows this, but when it comes to Jesus he kind of forget it.
Oh dear! Here they come again! The tired old Christian apologetics of Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius et al. Soundly debunked so many times that apologists that use them these days are simply laughed at.
That last one is big. Christians can argue Jesus wasn't important enough to be written about by the Romans although both Luke and Mark testify that his fame spread throughout all the region and into other countries. Yet not a single letter in the thousands of private correspondences uncovered in the period ever mentions a man from Galilee who works marvelous miracles and was crucified.
How many 1st century letters from Palestine exist?????
Oh, the epistles are ... letters from that region, so such do exist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
