Bible as the most reliable ancient text
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-10-2017, 06:11 PM
Harry Potter as the most reliable modern text
Yup, 'cause London exists. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2017, 06:14 PM
RE: Bible as the most reliable ancient text
(23-10-2017 06:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yup, 'cause London exists. Drinking Beverage

BowingBowingBowingBowing
I KNEW Harry Potter was real.
Heart .. Heart .. Heart

Angel

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2017, 06:22 PM
RE: Bible as the most reliable ancient text
(23-10-2017 01:20 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  I alway laugh like hell when bible thumpers get all excited that the bible has the cities and towns that actually exist and somehow this is evidence of a god.

The Empire State Building exists. Ergo, King Kong.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jerry mcmasters's post
23-10-2017, 09:56 PM
RE: Bible as the most reliable ancient text
Middle Earth.

[Image: new_zealand_hobbiton_shire_house_view_co...1405471171]

Ergo Hobbits.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
23-10-2017, 10:48 PM
RE: Bible as the most reliable ancient text
(23-10-2017 08:53 AM)AreUthinking? Wrote:  
(22-10-2017 06:52 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:  The fact is, hardly two early manuscripts are the same. There are lots of variations, and scholars are well aware of that. The earliest copies of Mark do not have the final verses of chapter 16 relation the resurrection of Mark. Since the other gospel writers had nothing to copy from, each made up their own resurrection tales. Mark 16:9-16 was added later. For the first two centuries, copies of the gospels were papyruses. Many of them fragmentary. There are only 72 such manuscripts. From there there was a series of divergent schools of gospel editors, and lots of variations to be found. Hardly reliable. Most certainly we have nothing that can be called original.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_va..._Testament

John Mill's 1707 Greek New Testament was estimated to contain some 30,000 variants in its accompanying textual apparatus[1] which was based on "nearly 100 [Greek] manuscripts."[2] Eberhard Nestle estimated this number in 1897 as 150,000–200,000 variants.[3] Bart D. Ehrman has estimated that there are "between 200,000–400,000 variants [in] several million pages of manuscripts,"[4] and in 2014 Eldon J. Epp raised the estimate as high as 750,000.[5] The most recent estimate puts the number of non-spelling variants among New Testament manuscripts around 500,000.[6]

Wikipedia isn't reliable. Don't use wikipedia. Also, there are other people that copy the original manuscript. The one written by the Real MARK is important, and Mark didn't even write 100000000 copies of it. Same with other gospels.


But we do not have that. We have copies of copies of copies - all of which are error ridden as Historical Criticism has known for 3 centuries - and some time in the late 2d century some asshole attached the name of "mark" it.

But the bigger problem for you is that you do not have 4 stories. You have one.

What we now call mark was first. It was extensively copied by whoever wrote the later variants now attributed to "Matthew" and "Luke" but because there were certain glaring omissions, such as the nativity, they wrote their own versions which flat out contradict each other. Lastly, some guy comes along which later editors called "John" and he re-did the whole fucking story changing it from one year to three years and turning the godboy from the strong silent Gary Cooper type to Chatty Kathy.

So, pal, what you have is one crap story which ends at 16:8 and which was so unsatisfying to later jesus freaks that they helped him out by adding several different endings, two fanfics, and one total re-write.

Go blow your reliability out your ass. This stuff is nothing but pious bullshit.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Minimalist's post
24-10-2017, 03:18 AM
RE: Bible as the most reliable ancient text
(23-10-2017 06:14 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(23-10-2017 06:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yup, 'cause London exists. Drinking Beverage

BowingBowingBowingBowing
I KNEW Harry Potter was real.
Heart .. Heart .. Heart

Angel

That can't be real. There's a ginger kid with friends.

Get your own bleeding hymn book
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thedemonbarber's post
24-10-2017, 06:20 AM
RE: Bible as the most reliable ancient text
(23-10-2017 09:56 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Middle Earth.

[Image: new_zealand_hobbiton_shire_house_view_co...1405471171]

Ergo Hobbits.

We even have physical evidence for them
Drinking Beverage

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
24-10-2017, 08:07 AM
RE: Bible as the most reliable ancient text
I always wonder...

When people bang on about how reliable their texts are, what are they hoping to achieve? To me, it sounds like they're trying to convince us they aren't totally nuts, and are following something real instead of just some collection of stories. If they think it's going to convince anyone to join their gang, they need to address a lot more serious issues with their religion than this, such as their newly reliable book describing their God as a total piece of shit. If I was somehow a Christian, I'd be wanting to convince myself and others that the book is in fact very unreliable.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
24-10-2017, 09:50 AM
RE: Bible as the most reliable ancient text
(24-10-2017 08:07 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  I always wonder...

When people bang on about how reliable their texts are, what are they hoping to achieve? To me, it sounds like they're trying to convince us they aren't totally nuts, and are following something real instead of just some collection of stories. If they think it's going to convince anyone to join their gang, they need to address a lot more serious issues with their religion than this, such as their newly reliable book describing their God as a total piece of shit. If I was somehow a Christian, I'd be wanting to convince myself and others that the book is in fact very unreliable.

I think you forgot a "not" in there at the end ... and if so, that is in fact how liberal academics approach all this stuff ... "Well, it's poetic, and one has to account for the forms of ancient literature".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
24-10-2017, 02:31 PM
RE: Bible as the most reliable ancient text
As a grandson of Icelanders (Island if you care) I have read most of the sagas translated into English. There is much historical truth in those sagas there is also a lot of non truth. In one a man while being burned to death speaks poems. Age of the source does not make it relevant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: