FarflungWanderer Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 http://www.livescience.com/49489-oldest-known-gospel-mummy-mask.html I think my thoughts are that this is sensationalism. They haven't done anything yet, and even when they do it still has to go through peer review.Essentially, the entire article is meaningless from a "proof of God" standpoint, which I can only assume is why I was sent it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 There is no way. If christianity were true, and you had the earliest gospel written, that you knew was of heaven and hell importance, i don't think that the author would let it be used for making masks. -C'mon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Also, i can't wait for this to come out. It will either just be another copy that doesn't prove anything or it will provide more contradictions to the other versions of the gospel books. -whatever 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorPoet Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 This isn't as big of a deal as it might seem. The scholarly estimates for the intial writing of Mark are around the year 70. If this turns out to be legitimate, it would be the earliest copy found which is a huge discovery, but that still wouldn't be any sort of evidence for the tales it tells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I think that is what they are trying to pawn it off as, that it is something new that we haven't seen before. Like it's going to contain all new information or something. We'll see.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 It's a big deal in that, if they can actually nail the date down, it will be the only gospel fragment from the 1st century CE. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Yes, but i am more interested in what it will "say" on the fragment. Will it be different or no.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 If it's already been identified as a fragment from g.Mark then I'd say the odds that it says something dramatically different from what is written in our copies of Mark as rather low. My bets are on the whole thing being fairly similar if not identical to our current copies with the important news being the earlier dating. With any luck some of the other documents they've found contain more exotic information and this g.Mark stuff is here to whet some appetites. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I guess your right. If they had seen that it said something radically different i would have heard something by now, oh well, there goes that enthusiasm. -CC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Maybe if they found an actual intact original ending to g.Mark that would be very exciting news. I would like to know that happened after those women left the tomb and weren't supposed to say a word about anything. Then what? Or maybe an autograph so we can know who this "Mark" really is? But I doubt we're looking at anything this interesting based on what was said. I still think we're just confirming a 1st century dating. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheerbliss Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Essentially, the entire article is meaningless from a "proof of God" standpoint, which I can only assume is why I was sent it. The article says they found pieces of Homer's works and some philosophical works also. It would be interesting if they could recover some lost texts. But they're not factual just because...what, they're old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Maybe if they found an actual intact original ending to g.Mark that would be very exciting news. I would like to know that happened after those women left the tomb and weren't supposed to say a word about anything. Then what? Or maybe an autograph so we can know who this "Mark" really is? Would be nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarflungWanderer Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 Essentially, the entire article is meaningless from a "proof of God" standpoint, which I can only assume is why I was sent it. The article says they found pieces of Homer's works and some philosophical works also. It would be interesting if they could recover some lost texts. But they're not factual just because...what, they're old? I was thinking about that. What if these papyrus masks are the key to finding the lost plays by Homer? The insight into Ancient Greek culture, and the works of Homer, would be priceless... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Oh good. I'm reading Bart ehrman right now so this is fun. Even if content is nearly same there could be many changes potentially that it could prove have occurred. Or maybe King James got lucky. If so there'll be no living with fundies for a while. *sigh* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 If it ain't the 1611 KJV, then it ain't the original! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts