The Majority of the Idioms int he Bible where not attempted to translate, for the reason of possibly mistranslating. They where not translated Into idioms either. Also, I doubt even if they where, it would make a signifigant difference.
quote: Not to mention that there are normal expressions and verbs that do not mean the exact same thing in English. Like, there are 2 different verbs in French for "to know" but one is to know facts, and another to know people, but in English we only use 1. There is tons of stuff like that which could screw up translation.
Hebrew is the same way, but again from Bible scholars, to Secular, and skeptics who have translated the bible have alkl saud the translation is correct and accurate.
quote: Umm, no. There are different versions for the Bible. We have to order our Bible's directly through our school, otherwise we cannot get the one they want. The words are different, the phrases are different, hell, even the numbering is different. You cannot tell me it is just "formatted" differently.
All the book, and manuscripts with make up the 'official' Cannon are identical. Some Bible do not have certion passages because they where not in some of the earliest manuscripts, and somehave an extra book or two.
And if 2 things are formatted differently, aren't they going to look, and work differently? lol.
quote: Religious people are almost always bigoted
This just goes to prove your Bigoty and ignorance. If I said, "Pagans are almost always fat, reject lesbains." You would explode. What you said is not different.
quote: Being gay does not = being anti-religious.
Neither does being religious mean anti-honosexual.
quote: There are bigoted Christians
As well as bigoted non-Christians as you have proven.
quote: The whole Bible is a "maybe" so get over yourself. I was just explaining why there are so many discrepancies in the Bible. Which there are, and you know it.
Fling them at me sweetheart.
quote: Religious people are almost always bigoted. You, Bucketnuts, Tallywhacker, etc, are just a few examples... It means you are hated by religious people, such as yourselves... There are bigoted Christians. Again, look at you three for example... Your homophobic views and these stupid boards you make are propaganda; I do not see you complaining about it...
I have said:
Well, first lets address the issue that Christians are not supposed to "hate" anyone. If they do, then they are not Christians, so do not say "Christians hate" that is a contraction in terms.
True the Bible does call homosexuals "detestable to God". It also says the same for liars, thieves, and people who lust constantly. In honesty, we have all done wrong in the eyes of God, the bible tells us that "No one among [us] is righteous, none, not even one..." And Jesus said it is wrong to tell someone else they are wrong, because until you yourself are right, then you are just as guilty and should face the same judgment you pass out.
If I say, "You Homosexuals ar abominations, and will burn in hell!" then I have sentenced myself to hell as well, because I am no better, but just as worse, as any sinner. So remember, if someone passes a judgment on you, they will suffer the same...
You CAN be gay and Christian...
I believe marriage between any two consenting adults, is guaranteed by the constitution. Gay marriage is controversial (to say the least) but so is the right own guns (also protected by the constitution). On the issue of Marriage. I understand that the religious community is feeling a sense of loss. As it is marriage is --historically-- a religious institution. Though personally, and as a Christian, I feel marriage as a religious joining is still sacred, and can be kept that way by honoring it the way we were asked to by God.
Can you be gay and Christian? Christ come to anyone, ANYONE who willfully, and sincerely asks him into their heart, and lives. Homosexuality, the lifestyle, is condemned in the bible. So is lying, lusting, stealing, and so much as insulting another person. I believe we are all guilty (most?) of those things. So who are we to judge and wrong? And who are we to pick and choose who can come? If a gay person come to God (sincerely of course), God will lead them, and give them the conviction of who he wants them to be, and how he wants them to live.
Are GLBT people born the way they are? Well I am no scientist (sorry…) but it is my personal opinion that we do no choose who we love. I dare anyone to tell their special someone the next time you see them, “I decided to love you.” Transgender? That is something that I have no clue about. However people can be unhappy with themselves in several ways, their height, shape of their feet (: / ) or perhaps they cannot grow hair, or they have week teeth… couldn’t one then be disappointed in their natural gender? But again, I don’t know about that.
To PaintBucket, I've said:
I don't like you because you give Christians a bad name with your anti-gay 'that, that and the other thing'.
Being Gay is no lesser evil to God, then telling a lie! Have you ever lied? Then you are just as incompatible! What gives you to right to tell gays they are wrong, when your wrong yourself! That is removing a speck from their eye, when you can't even see clear enough, for the plank in yours. Stop saying they are wrong, until you yourself are right! To do otherwise, would be contrary to what it means to be a Christian!
And this, "incompatible with Christian" measure you use, is going to be measured to you, when you have to be judged, by the only one who has the right to sit in judgment. So keep that in mind next time you might tell a little white lie, or think some girl has a hot body, or say a swear word or something bad about someone.
God will tell you, "Isn't this incompatible as well? Why then are you any better then they?" I hope you are ready to debate that matter with him.
About Christianity: Christianity is indeed, corrupted, perverted, sickening, and foul.
quote: You might wanna read more carefully next time. Or you might wanna actually start reading carefully.
quote:So what, we can't translate languages? How do we communicate with the French, or Spanish then?
I never said we couldn't translate languages, moron. I said that we cannot translate directly. There's these things... they're called idiomatic expressions. My French teacher is always pointing them out and then telling us what it is sort of like in English. They never translate directly, and they only sound good and make sense in French.
For example: avoir faim - that directly means "to have hungry." Its closest English equivalent that makes sense is "to be hungry." If you did "to be hungry" directly into French it would be "etre faim" but that is inaccurate. That is why direct translation is not possible a lot of the time.
Not to mention that there are normal expressions and verbs that do not mean the exact same thing in English. Like, there are 2 different verbs in French for "to know" but one is to know facts, and another to know people, but in English we only use 1. There is tons of stuff like that which could screw up translation.
quote:Umm, different formats?
Umm, no. There are different versions for the Bible. We have to order our Bible's directly through our school, otherwise we cannot get the one they want. The words are different, the phrases are different, hell, even the numbering is different. You cannot tell me it is just "formatted" differently.
quote:1) Non-religious people are bigots as well. 2) Gay people are also anti-religious/Christian, why not address that as well? 3) "bigoted Christian' is a contradiction is terms, Read my "Christianity" thread, I addressed this.
1) Religious people are almost always bigoted. You, Bucketnuts, Tallywhacker, etc, are just a few examples. 2) Being gay does not = being anti-religious. It means you are hated by religious people, such as yourselves. 3) There are bigoted Christians. Again, look at you three for example.
quote:Also that fact that you said "could have" is humorous, you are inserting subjective, and unproven personal ideal as if fact, and using it in a argument. How is that any different then the people with no proof homosexuality is wrong saying it, as long as they say "could be" before it.
The whole Bible is a "maybe" so get over yourself. I was just explaining why there are so many discrepancies in the Bible. Which there are, and you know it.
quote:Propaganda on any platform can be a powerful tool. Do you believe all Germans are Anti-Semitic, or victims of lies?
Your homophobic views and these stupid boards you make are propaganda; I do not see you complaining about it.
quote:The Church is no exception, liars get in ,a nd use the bible to do horrible things. This isn't the concept of Christianity however, so I don't see it as a valid argument, just more babble.
I never blamed the religion. I blamed the people following it. You might wanna read more carefully next time. Or you might wanna actually start reading carefully.
quote:I have already proven how the over-whelming majority of the bible is Historically accurate and parallel to the original manuscripts, so again this argument is invalid.
You have not proved a bloody thing. Now go prove that being a homosexual is wrong, not whether or not the Bible is accurate. That is not what this board is about and I am not going to debate with you on it any longer.
quote:Asked and answered.
Still waiting for an answer. And no, "the Bible says it is" is not a real answer.
Bucketnuts
quote:It takes more than a first punch to make me fight. I have only done it when I had no other choice. Before every time I fight someone (never at school or in public) I talk to people to get the assialant calmed down. I try to figure out the problem and solve it. But if they are hellbent on a fight, and it's been a long time that they wanted a fight, we got to a deserted lot and I beat them up. Afterwards, I personally drive them to the hospital. I don't have any hard feelings towards them. I love everyone, including murders, rapists, gays, people who practice other religions, prostitutes, drug-dealers, people who have a ****ing problem with me and can't believe a word I say, everyone on this planet.
Whatever. You have already proved to us that you a homophobic moron. Only now you have shown us that you are violent as well. Just stop trying to defend yourself; it is making you look even worse.
quote:The rest of the matter I am dropping. We can do without it on this board.
About god-damn time. Now prove to us that being a homosexual is wrong, without bringing the Bible into it, which you have just said you should drop.
---
Now, guys, stop trying to use the Bible, or even try to convince us that it is worth listening to. Not everyone is Christian, and if you bring your religious beliefs into a secular discussion, no one is going to listen to you.
Either stop wasting space telling us that we are wrong, or prove already that being a homosexual is wrong (I repeat, without the Bible). If not, do not bother saying anything at all, because we will also know that you are illiterate because you could not read what I just wrote (or the topic of this thread, for that matter).
quote: Can't we blow up the Moon? How is it a God then?
Who created the Moon? Did the Moon create the rest of the universe? Who told you the Moon was God, and how do you know they are right?
Why would you want to blow up the moon? Once it's gone the ocean tides will increase and we'll all drown.
The moon was possibly created from extra gas and dust floating around the earth. No, the moon did not create the universe. The moon is not "God", it is one Goddess (Luna, Diana, Isis, whatever you want to call her) out of 10 other Gods and Goddesses I believe in, the moon is just more important to me.
quote: A true Christian wouldn't do that. Turn the other cheek.
quote: Shut up you lying bigot. You don't love everyone.
So you love murders, rapists, polygamists, Gays?
This topic is against Gays. By the looks of it, you don't love Gays.
So what if someone throws the first punch? You don't have to fight back. Oh, wait. That'll make you 'look' Gay. Sorry, I forgot.
quote: Like I said. Follow your own rules before trying to preach them to us. For your information, beating people up is not loving them, even if they were the ones who started it. Defending yourself is ok; sending to the ER is not.
It takes more than a first punch to make me fight. I have only done it when I had no other choice. Before every time I fight someone (never at school or in public) I talk to people to get the assialant calmed down. I try to figure out the problem and solve it. But if they are hellbent on a fight, and it's been a long time that they wanted a fight, we got to a deserted lot and I beat them up. Afterwards, I personally drive them to the hospital. I don't have any hard feelings towards them. I love everyone, including murders, rapists, gays, people who practice other religions, prostitutes, drug-dealers, people who have a ****ing problem with me and can't believe a word I say, everyone on this planet.
quote: So what! You're BREAKING THE LAW. Good going. what happens if you killed someone? Is that worth bragging over?
quote: You're bragging about breaking the law? Once again, poor example of being a Christian. Jesus says to obey authorities, for God has given them the power for a reason.
It's how I get my jollies, seeing as how I have gasoline in my blood.
quote: Get back on topic, otherwise you are pretty much admitting that you are wrong.
Ok, you want to argue about the proof of the O.T.? Try this. The bible code (In hebrew) is a collection of matrices in close proximity. Words that describe future events like the following are explained in striking context:
Napoleon, Elba, Waterloo Einstein, Relativity Hitler, Evil, Nazi, slaughter Atomic Holocaust, 1945 Kennedy, Oswald, Ruby, Assassin The names and death dates of famous rabbis The names and death dates of famous people The great LA quake And so many more
The odds of these events predicted right are off the charts. These words are found very close to one another. Top that.
The rest of the matter I am dropping. We can do without it on this board.
I was not saying that the copying was wrong. I was questioning the translation. Copying and translating are two totally different things.
quote:Your charge that the bible was wriiten by Bigoted, anti-homosexual men is also unfounded, and extremely ignornat.
"written" and "ignorant" for starters. The only ignorant ones here are your friends Bucketnuts and Tallywhacker.
quote:No where does it say in the bible we are to hate homosexuals, and I challenge you to find it if it does.
On the contrary; the whole time I have been saying that the Bible DOES NOT say that, and if it does, it was added by homophobes who managed to get their hands on it and changed it. You should be charging that question to Bucketnuts and Tallywhacker.
Ok, recap for all you idiots out there:
I have never said the Bible says to hate gays. I have been sayin the whole time that it DOES NOT say that, unlike Bucketnuts and Tallywhacker.
I am not anti-Bible, I just do not believe it is a reliable source for anything that matters. You cannot bring the Bible into secular debates because not everyone believes in the Bible.
If you are going to believe one verse of Leviticus, you have to believe all of them (which includes going to hell for having interaction with menstruating women, touching a pig, or shaving).
The main message of Christianity, and every other major world religion, is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So stop preaching that being gay is wrong when you yourself are sinning.
Prove that being a homosexual is a choice already. All you guys have done is babbled on about the Bible for 17 pages or more, telling us that we are wrong when you have not said a bloody thing that is correct (and no, your opinion is not proof). Many people here have given SCIENTIFIC, RELIABLE sources from WELL-KNOWN people who have EXTENSIVELY STUDIED homosexuality proving that it is NOT a choice.
So stop getting mad at me for telling you guys to knock it off, grow up, and get over yourselves.
quote: No language can be translated word for word. Just look at any foreign language and you will see that.
So what, we can't translate languages? How do we communicate with the French, or Spanish then?
You CAN translate a language, the 'word for word' statement was a comment on how long, and diligent the process is, it could take (literally) years to translate just 1 page of the bible to make it as accurate as possible to the original manuscripts.
quote: If everything is so "accurate," then why are all of the different versions so different?
Umm, different formats?
If I said "Hail, Xia!" then "Hello, Xia" am i speaking 2 different languages? No, just a different way of speaking, there are 100 ways to say "Hi", point is not matter which way, I say it, it is still "Hi".
Look up the Word, Paraphrase.
The bible is paraphrased a lot for the convince of the readers. I like the NIV (New international version) Some like the KJV (King James Version) They both say the same thing, just different styles of speaking.
quote: The only ones here that are babbling are you Bible-thumping homophobic bigots. "Homosexuality is wrong! Don't let Satan make you do it! Repent or burn in hell forever, you disgusting gays!" Only you guys say it with really bad grammar and spelling mistakes.
Common sense would dictate that what I said is mostly accurate. Besides, if you had noted how I said "might have" in several cases, you could see that it may or may not have happened; I was only saying it could have; that it would explain the discrepancies between Bibles.
1) Non-religious people are bigots as well. 2) Gay people are also anti-religious/Christian, why not address that as well? 3) "bigoted Christian' is a contradiction is terms, Read my "Christianity" thread, I addressed this.
Also that fact that you said "could have" is humorous, you are inserting subjective, and unproven personal ideal as if fact, and using it in a argument. How is that any different then the people with no proof homosexuality is wrong saying it, as long as they say "could be" before it.
quote: Actually, now that I think about it, in my World History class last year, we studied the Church in the Medieval times (and thereabouts) and about how corrupted it was. They were taking the donation money and creating lavish churches, while people were starving. They were selling indulgences that were "guarenteed to get you into heaven." Not to mention the Crusades, where you go to heaven automatically if you die trying to kill the "infidel."
Propaganda on any platform can be a powerful tool. Do you believe all Germans are Anti-Semitic, or victims of lies?
The Church is no exception, liars get in ,a nd use the bible to do horrible things. This isn't the concept of Christianity however, so I don't see it as a valid argument, just more babble.
quote: Like I said before, it has been twisted around by a lot of different people. Only an idiot, or someone who is not capable of analyzing the history of the Church, would not be able to see this.
I have already proven how the over-whelming majority of the bible is Historically accurate and parallel to the original manuscripts, so again this argument is invalid.
quote: Anyways. Back to the topic. Prove that being gay is bad without using the Bible. Do not post unless you have something relevant to that topic, otherwise you are admitting defeat indirectly.
Xia, your either a liar, or your "cathloic theology and religion classes stand out as not caring about the truth.
quote: he Old Testament For both Old and New Testaments, the crucial question is: "Not having any original copies or scraps of the Bible, can we reconstruct them well enough from the oldest manuscript evidence we do have so they give us a true, undistorted view of actual people, places and events?"
The Scribe The scribe was considered a professional person in antiquity. No printing presses existed, so people were trained to copy documents. The task was usually undertaken by a devout Jew. The Scribes believed they were dealing with the very Word of God and were therefore extremely careful in copying. They did not just hastily write things down. The earliest complete copy of the Hebrew Old Testament dates from c. 900 A.D.
The Massoretic Text During the early part of the tenth century (916 A.D.), there was a group of Jews called the Massoretes. These Jews were meticulous in their copying. The texts they had were all in capital letters, and there was no punctuation or paragraphs. The Massoretes would copy Isaiah, for example, and when they were through, they would total up the number of letters. Then they would find the middle letter of the book. If it was not the same, they made a new copy. All of the present copies of the Hebrew text which come from this period are in remarkable agreement. Comparisons of the Massoretic text with earlier Latin and Greek versions have also revealed careful copying and little deviation during the thousand years from 100 B.C. to 900 A.D. But until this century, there was scant material written in Hebrew from antiquity which could be compared to the Masoretic texts of the tenth century A.D.
The Dead Sea Scrolls In 1947, a young Bedouin goat herdsman found some strange clay jars in caves near the valley of the Dead Sea. Inside the jars were some leather scrolls. The discovery of these "Dead Sea Scrolls" at Qumran has been hailed as the outstanding archeological discovery of the twentieth century. The scrolls have revealed that a commune of monastic farmers flourished in the valley from 150 B.C. to 70 A.D. It is believed that when they saw the Romans invade the land they put their cherished leather scrolls in the jars and hid them in the caves on the cliffs northwest of the Dead Sea. The Dead Sea Scrolls include a complete copy of the Book of Isaiah, a fragmented copy of Isaiah, containing much of Isaiah 38-6, and fragments of almost every book in the Old Testament. The majority of the fragments are from Isaiah and the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). The books of Samuel, in a tattered copy, were also found and also two complete chapters of the book of Habakkuk. In addition, there were a number of nonbiblical scrolls related to the commune found.
These materials are dated around 100 B.C. The significance of the find, and particularly the copy of Isaiah, was recognized by Merrill F. Unger when he said, "This complete document of Isaiah quite understandably created a sensation since it was the first major Biblical manuscript of great antiquity ever to be recovered. Interest in it was especially keen since it antedates by more than a thousand years the oldest Hebrew texts preserved in the Massoretic tradition."{2}
The supreme value of these Qumran documents lies in the ability of biblical scholars to compare them with the Massoretic Hebrew texts of the tenth century A.D. If, upon examination, there were little or no textual changes in those Massoretic texts where comparisons were possible, an assumption could then be made that the Massoretic Scribes had probably been just as faithful in their copying of the other biblical texts which could not be compared with the Qumran material.
What was learned? A comparison of the Qumran manuscript of Isaiah with the Massoretic text revealed them to be extremely close in accuracy to each other: "A comparison of Isaiah 53 shows that only 17 letters differ from the Massoretic text. Ten of these are mere differences in spelling (like our "honor" and the English "honour") and produce no change in the meaning at all. Four more are very minor differences, such as the presence of a conjunction (and) which are stylistic rather than substantive. The other three letters are the Hebrew word for "light." This word was added to the text by someone after "they shall see" in verse 11. Out of 166 words in this chapter, only this one word is really in question, and it does not at all change the meaning of the passage. We are told by biblical scholars that this is typical of the whole manuscript of Isaiah."{3}
The Septuagint The Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, also confirms the accuracy of the copyists who ultimately gave us the Massoretic text. The Septuagint is often referred to as the LXX because it was reputedly done by seventy Jewish scholars in Alexandria around 200 B.C. The LXX appears to be a rather literal translation from the Hebrew, and the manuscripts we have are pretty good copies of the original translation.
Conclusion In his book, Can I Trust My Bible, R. Laird Harris concluded, "We can now be sure that copyists worked with great care and accuracy on the Old Testament, even back to 225 B.C. . . . indeed, it would be rash skepticism that would now deny that we have our Old Testament in a form very close to that used by Ezra when he taught the word of the Lord to those who had returned from the Babylonian captivity."{4}
The New Testament The Greek Manuscript Evidence There are more than 4,000 different ancient Greek manuscripts containing all or portions of the New Testament that have survived to our time. These are written on different materials. Papyrus and Parchment
During the early Christian era, the writing material most commonly used was papyrus. This highly durable reed from the Nile Valley was glued together much like plywood and then allowed to dry in the sun. In the twentieth century many remains of documents (both biblical and non-biblical) on papyrus have been discovered, especially in the dry, arid lands of North Africa and the Middle East.
Another material used was parchment. This was made from the skin of sheep or goats, and was in wide use until the late Middle Ages when paper began to replace it. It was scarce and more expensive; hence, it was used almost exclusively for important documents.
Examples
1. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Siniaticus
These are two excellent parchment copies of the entire New Testament which date from the 4th century (325-450 A.D.).{5}
2. Older Papyrii
Earlier still, fragments and papyrus copies of portions of the New Testament date from 100 to 200 years (180-225 A.D.) before Vaticanus and Sinaticus. The outstanding ones are the Chester Beatty Papyrus (P45, P46, P47) and the Bodmer Papyrus II, XIV, XV (P46, P75).
From these five manuscripts alone, we can construct all of Luke, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, and portions of Matthew, Mark, Acts, and Revelation. Only the Pastoral Epistles (Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy) and the General Epistles (James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1, 2, and 3 John) and Philemon are excluded.{6}
3. Oldest Fragment
Perhaps the earliest piece of Scripture surviving is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John 18:31-33 and 37. It is called the Rylands Papyrus (P52) and dates from 130 A.D., having been found in Egypt. The Rylands Papyrus has forced the critics to place the fourth gospel back into the first century, abandoning their earlier assertion that it could not have been written then by the Apostle John.{7}
4. This manuscript evidence creates a bridge of extant papyrus and parchment fragments and copies of the New Testament stretching back to almost the end of the first century.
Versions (Translations) In addition to the actual Greek manuscripts, there are more than 1,000 copies and fragments of the New Testament in Syria, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic, as well as 8,000 copies of the Latin Vulgate, some of which date back almost to Jerome's original translation in 384 400 A.D.
Church Fathers A further witness to the New Testament text is sourced in the thousands of quotations found throughout the writings of the Church Fathers (the early Christian clergy [100-450 A.D.] who followed the Apostles and gave leadership to the fledgling church, beginning with Clement of Rome (96 A.D.). It has been observed that if all of the New Testament manuscripts and Versions mentioned above were to disappear overnight, it would still be possible to reconstruct the entire New Testament with quotes from the Church Fathers, with the exception of fifteen to twenty verses!
A Comparison The evidence for the early existence of the New Testament writings is clear. The wealth of materials for the New Testament becomes even more significant when we compare it with other ancient documents which have been accepted without question.
Author and Work Author's Lifespan Date of Events Date of Writing* Earliest Extant MS** Lapse: Event to Writing Lapse: Event to MS Matthew, Gospel ca. 0-70? 4 BC - AD 30 50 - 65/75 ca. 200 <50 years <200 years Mark, Gospel ca. 15-90? 27 - 30 65/70 ca. 225 <50 years <200 years Luke, Gospel ca. 10-80? 5 BC - AD 30 60/75 ca. 200 <50 years <200 years John, Gospel ca. 10-100 27-30 90-110 ca. 130 <80 years <100 years Paul, Letters ca. 0-65 30 50-65 ca. 200 20-30 years <200 years Josephus, War ca. 37-100 200 BC - AD 70 ca. 80 ca. 950 10-300 years 900-1200 years Josephus, Antiquities ca. 37-100 200 BC - AD 65 ca. 95 ca. 1050 30-300 years 1000-1300 years Tacitus, Annals ca. 56-120 AD 14-68 100-120 ca. 850 30-100 years 800-850 years Seutonius, Lives ca. 69-130 50 BC - AD 95 ca. 120 ca. 850 25-170 years 750-900 years Pliny, Letters ca. 60-115 97-112 110-112 ca. 850 0-3 years 725-750 years Plutarch, Lives ca. 50-120 500 BC - AD 70 ca. 100 ca. 950 30-600 years 850-1500 years Herodotus, History ca. 485-425 BC 546-478 BC 430-425 BC ca. 900 50-125 years 1400-1450 years Thucydides, History ca. 460-400 BC 431-411 BC 410-400 BC ca. 900 0-30 years 1300-1350 years Xenophon, Anabasis ca. 430-355 BC 401-399 BC 385-375 BC ca. 1350 15-25 years 1750 years Polybius, History ca. 200-120 BC 220-168 BC ca. 150 BC ca. 950 20-70 years 1100-1150 years
*Where a slash occurs, the first date is conservative, and the second is liberal. **New Testament manuscripts are fragmentary. Earliest complete manuscript is from ca. 350; lapse of event to complete manuscript is about 325 years.
Conclusion In his book, The Bible and Archaeology, Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, stated about the New Testament, "The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."{8} To be skeptical of the 27 documents in the New Testament, and to say they are unreliable is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the New Testament.
B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, the creators of The New Testament in Original Greek, also commented: "If comparative trivialities such as changes of order, the insertion or omission of the article with proper names, and the like are set aside, the works in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly mount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament."{9} In other words, the small changes and variations in manuscripts change no major doctrine: they do not affect Christianity in the least. The message is the same with or without the variations. We have the Word of God.
The Anvil? God's Word. Last eve I passed beside a blacksmith's door And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime: Then looking in, I saw upon the floor Old hammers, worn with beating years of time.
"How many anvils have you had," said I, "To wear and batter all these hammers so?" "Just one," said he, and then, with twinkling eye, "The anvil wears the hammers out, you know."
And so, thought I, the anvil of God's word, For ages skeptic blows have beat upon; Yet though the noise of falling blows was heard, The anvil is unharmed . . . the hammer's gone. Author unknown
Notes
C.Sanders, Introduction in Research in English Literacy (New York: MacMillan, 1952), 143. Merrill F. Unger, Famous Archaeological Discoveries (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), 72. R. Laird Harris, Can I Trust My Bible? (Chicago: Moody Press, 1963), 124. Ibid., 129-30. Merrill F. Unger, Unger's Bible Handbook (Chicago: Moody Press, 1967), 892. Ibid. Ibid. Sir Fredric Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1940), 288ff. B.F. Westcott, and F.J.A. Hort, eds., New Testament in Original Greek, 1881, vol. II, 2.
quote: Old Testament How do we know the Bible has been kept in tact for over 2,000 years of copying? Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls our earliest Hebrew copy of the Old Testament was the Masoretic text dating around 800 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls date around the time of Jesus copied by the Qumran community, a Jewish sect living around the Dead Sea. We also have the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament dating in the second century B.C. When we compare these texts which have an 800-1000 years gap between them we are amazed that 95% of the texts are identical with only minor variations and a few discrepancies.
New Testament In considering the New Testament we have tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in part or in whole dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century when the printing press was invented. These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, making collusion unlikely. The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed Asia Minor). Many early Christian papyri were discovered in 1935, which have been dated to 150 A.D., and include the four gospels. The Papyrus Bodmer II, discovered in 1956, has been dated to 200 A.D. and contains 14 chapters and portions of the last seven chapters of the gospel of John. The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, discovered in 1931, has been dated to 200-250 A.D. and contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation. The number of manuscripts is extensive compared to other ancient historical writings, such as Caesar's "Gallic Wars" (10 Greek manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), the "Annals" of Tacitus (2 manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), Livy (20 manuscripts, the earliest 350 years after the original), and Plato (7 manuscripts).
Manuscript Evidence for Ancient Writings Author Written Earliest Copy Time Span # Mss.
Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,000 yrs 10
Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,200 yrs 7
Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,300 yrs 8
Tacitus 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1,000 yrs 20
Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643
New Testament 40-100 A.D. 125 A.D. 25-50 yrs 24,000
We also have thousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries which cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, we can actually put the entire New Testament together just from early Christian writings. For example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (dated 95 A.D.) cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. The letters of Ignatius (dated 115 A.D.) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D. In addition, there is internal evidence for a first century date for the writing of the New Testament. The book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul in prison, awaiting trial (Acts 28:30-31 (1)). It is likely that Luke wrote Acts during this time, before Paul finally appeared before Nero. This would be about 62-63 A.D., meaning that Acts and Luke were written within thirty years of ministry and death of Jesus. Another internal evidence is that there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Although Matthew, Mark and Luke record Jesus' prophecy that the temple and city would be destroyed within that generation (Matthew 24:1-2 (2),Mark 13:1-2 (3), Luke 21:5-9,20-24,32(4)) no New Testament book refers to this event as having happened. If they had been written after 70 A.D., it is likely that letters written after 70 A.D. would have mentioned fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. As stated by Nelson Glueck, former president of the Jewish Theological Seminary in the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, and renowned Jewish archaeologist: "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D."
With all of the massive manuscript evidence you would think we would have massive discrepancies - just the opposite is true. New Testament manuscripts agree in 99.5% of the text (compared to only 95% for the Iliad). Most of the discrepancies are in spelling and word order. A few words have been changed or added. There are two passages that are disputed but no discrepancy is of any doctrinal significance. Most Bibles include the options as footnotes when there are discrepancies. How could there be such accuracy over 1,400 years of copying? Two reasons: The scribes that did the copying had meticulous methods for checking their copies for errors. 2) The Holy Spirit made sure we would have an accurate copy of God's word so we would not be deceived. The Mormons, liberals as well as other cults and false religions such as Islam that claim the Bible has been tampered with are completely proven false by the extensive, historical manuscript evidence.
There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament.
These manuscript copies are very ancient and they are available for inspection now.
There are also some 86,000 quotations from the early church fathers and several thousand Lectionaries (church-service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity).
Bottom line: the New Testament has an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting its reliability.
Your charge that the bible was wriiten by Bigoted, anti-homosexual men is also unfounded, and extremely ignornat.
No where does it say in the bible we are to hate homosexuals, and I challenge you to find it if it does.
Xia, you are nothing more than a Bigot yourself, you have nothing to prove what you are saying, and there is more than enough evidence to contridict you.
So what do you call someone who has no evidnce to support their claim (and on the contrary only evidence against) but insist they are right?
quote: The only reason I fought them is because they throw the first punch. So then I kick their *** and forget the whole thing ever happened.
A true Christian wouldn't do that. Turn the other cheek.
quote: Gone 125 mph on the interstate Gone 100 mph on a US highway Exceeded speed limits sometimes 45 mph or more Ran 10 stop lights Ran 23 stop signs Did dangerous passes Raced (and won) Ran off the road partially 12 times Ran completely off 2 times Got 2 tickets And countless more.
You're bragging about breaking the law? Once again, poor example of being a Christian. Jesus says to obey authorities, for God has given them the power for a reason.
quote:There is no evidence to support your claim that anything has been distorted, added, or removed.
Actually, now that I think about it, in my World History class last year, we studied the Church in the Medieval times (and thereabouts) and about how corrupted it was. They were taking the donation money and creating lavish churches, while people were starving. They were selling indulgences that were "guarenteed to get you into heaven." Not to mention the Crusades, where you go to heaven automatically if you die trying to kill the "infidel."
Like I said before, it has been twisted around by a lot of different people. Only an idiot, or someone who is not capable of analyzing the history of the Church, would not be able to see this.
Anyways. Back to the topic. Prove that being gay is bad without using the Bible. Do not post unless you have something relevant to that topic, otherwise you are admitting defeat indirectly.
quote:Not bragging, simply stating a fact. I love everyone and will never start a fight. The only reason I fought them is because they throw the first punch. So then I kick their *** and forget the whole thing ever happened. Even at school I am friendly to these people like anyone else. The guy I beat up a few days ago, we are like usual friends, joking about everything. I feel no hostility to anyone.
Shut up you lying bigot. You don't love everyone.
So you love murders, rapists, polygamists, Gays?
This topic is against Gays. By the looks of it, you don't love Gays.
So what if someone throws the first punch? You don't have to fight back. Oh, wait. That'll make you 'look' Gay. Sorry, I forgot.
Can anyone say 'Bigoted *******'?
quote:Gone 125 mph on the interstate Gone 100 mph on a US highway Exceeded speed limits sometimes 45 mph or more Ran 10 stop lights Ran 23 stop signs Did dangerous passes Raced (and won) Ran off the road partially 12 times Ran completely off 2 times Got 2 tickets And countless more.
So what! You're BREAKING THE LAW. Good going. what happens if you killed someone? Is that worth bragging over?
quote: Stop your babbling, you have no evidence to support what you are saying, and most of it is so wrong, it makes me wonder how you dreamed it up.
Topics 
