The Biggest Contradiction

[Mythra]

[it seems to me that Sub has been off studying apologetics, which now were gonna have to deal with the not answering the questions until he's found the answer xtian motis operandi.

 

He had better pack a lunch when he gets back here. We are on to these graduates of the Eusebian School for Religious Advancement.

[Guest sub_zer0]

Do you believe you have an infallible, inerrant interpretation? I don't think so. You believe you have the "best" interpretation. That I will accept is what you believe. Now, accepting that you in your fallible condition as a human being are making fallible interpretations of scripture, how in the name of all that is deemed honest, can you say to other Christians that if what they believe isn't what you believe, then they are not believing the absolute Truth?

 

We aren't talking about interpretation but translation and copying of the manuscripts.

 

You have just admitted you have "reasoned logically to make one conclude" it is the truth. Yet church #2 of the 30.000 Christian denominations have also "reasoned logically to make one conclude" what they feel is the truth, and on and on. Are you saying you are inspired infallibly in your "logical reasoning"? I don't believe you can honest admit that.

 

All I am saying all these supposed contradictions have reasonable answers.

 

Moreover, even though you clearly feel that your interpretation that you have "reasoned logically to make one conclude" is the best interpretation because it's the one of the thousands out there that you have chosen to adopt (or maybe that was because it was the closet available at the time that made sense to where you were in your life, etc - more on that later), do you believe your interpretation is 98.999% accurate? Exactly how accurate would you actually estimate your interpretation to be?

 

It isn't my interpretation that I reasoned logically, it is these contradictions that I have reasoned. I believe the manuscripts and the Bible we have now is 98% accurate.

 

I'll list one for you, sub. P52 - The Rylands Papyrus. 3 1/2" X 2 1/2". Conservatives date it at 125 CE. Other scholars date it as late as 170 CE.

 

Go ahead and give us the rest, sub.

 

What are you looking for?

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

I'll list one for you, sub. P52 - The Rylands Papyrus. 3 1/2" X 2 1/2". Conservatives date it at 125 CE. Other scholars date it as late as 170 CE.

 

Go ahead and give us the rest, sub.

 

What are you looking for?

 

Name the extant NT manuscripts copied before 133 A.D., sub, by shelfmark and library.

[Mythra]

Quit stalling, sub. You know what's going on. You made a statement that is either ignorant or false, thinking we were a bunch of high school freshmen you could dupe.

 

What we're looking for is for you to back up the statement you made with evidence.

 

 

Some of the manuscript evidence dates to within 100 years of the original writing.

 

Now, lets see the manuscripts (just like I demonstrated for P52)...

 

Or, apologize to us.

[Eponymic]

 

It isn't my interpretation that I reasoned logically, it is these contradictions that I have reasoned. I believe the manuscripts and the Bible we have now is 98% accurate.

 

 

Way to go, the infallible Bible, by your own admission, is still fallible because it's still not fully accurate!

 

Not to mention you're very blatanly skipping over the challenge about your integrity.

 

Are you really going to just hit & run again and prove that you're nothing more than a scared joiner who is too afraid to admit when he's wrong or made a mistake? If you don't at least address this issue your whole case falls.

[Guest sub_zer0]

Way to go, the infallible Bible, by your own admission, is still fallible because it's still not fully accurate!

 

Not to mention you're very blatanly skipping over the challenge about your integrity.

 

Are you really going to just hit & run again and prove that you're nothing more than a scared joiner who is too afraid to admit when he's wrong or made a mistake? If you don't at least address this issue your whole case falls.

 

Yep, the same point I have been holding all along, the original manuscripts were infallible.

[Eponymic]

Yep, the same point I have been holding all along, the original manuscripts were infallible.

 

Don't make it look like I'm upholding your point. I wasn't talking about how you think the original manuscripts are infallible. And in fact, your phrasing contradicts that in the quote I was responding to:

I believe the manuscripts and the Bible we have now is 98% accurate.

 

Either your phrasing is in error, or your opinion.

[Guest sub_zer0]

Yep, the same point I have been holding all along, the original manuscripts were infallible.

 

Don't make it look like I'm upholding your point. I wasn't talking about how you think the original manuscripts are infallible. And in fact, your phrasing contradicts that in the quote I was responding to:

I believe the manuscripts and the Bible we have now is 98% accurate.

 

Either your phrasing is in error, or your opinion.

 

Here is the difference, autographs are perfect, the original manuscripts. The manuscripts that make up the Bible are 98% accurate.

[Eponymic]

 

Here is the difference, autographs are perfect, the original manuscripts. The manuscripts that make up the Bible are 98% accurate.

 

Great. Just make sure you're clear about it next time.

Otherwise it's misleading or appears like you don't know what you're talking about.

[SkepticOfBible]

Here is the difference, autographs are perfect, the original manuscripts.

So you are saying the original was written "correctly", where the manuscripts that you hold are "incorrect" copies. Well, off course, "the first edition" or the first manuscript will be correct, because there is nothing to compare it with. By that defination even the first Quran is perfect

 

the original manuscripts were infallible.

So are you saying that

 

1)Content in the original ,ie there are no mistakes in geography, history etc in that particular manuscript

or

2)That it was written correctly

 

 

The manuscripts that make up the Bible are 98% accurate.

I am still wondering how you got your 98% figure. Before it was 99.5%.

 

Please show us how you worked this figure out.

[Guest sub_zer0]

So you are saying the original was written "correctly", where the manuscripts that you hold are "incorrect" copies. Well, off course, "the first edition" or the first manuscript will be correct, because there is nothing to compare it with. By that defination even the first Quran is perfect

 

Why does it become correct because there is nothing to compare it with? What would it be compared with and in what sense?

 

So are you saying that

 

1)Content in the original ,ie there are no mistakes in geography, history etc in that particular manuscript

or

2)That it was written correctly

 

1) Indeed.

2) Indeed.

 

 

I am still wondering how you got your 98% figure. Before it was 99.5%.

 

Please show us how you worked this figure out.

 

I forget the figure, but I have now looked it up once again, it is 99.5%.

 

The information I got was adapted from 1) Christian Apologetics, by Norman Geisler, 1976, p. 307; 2) the article "Archaeology and History attest to the Reliability of the Bible," by Richard M. Fales, Ph.D., in The Evidence Bible, Compiled by Ray Comfort, Bridge-Logos Publishers, Gainesville, FL, 2001, p. 163; and 3) A Ready Defense, by Josh Mcdowell, 1993, p. 45.

[SkepticOfBible]

So you are saying the original was written "correctly", where the manuscripts that you hold are "incorrect" copies. Well, off course, "the first edition" or the first manuscript will be correct, because there is nothing to compare it with. By that defination even the first Quran is perfect

 

Why does it become correct because there is nothing to compare it with? What would it be compared with and in what sense?

 

Because it is the first of it's kind. The first copy of the Lord of the Ring cannot be written incorrectly because it is written for the first time. However the content may be incorrect ie the claim about the Middle-earth.

 

So are you saying that

 

1)Content in the original ,ie there are no mistakes in geography, history etc in that particular manuscript

1) Indeed.

 

You are in no position to make that claim because you don't have the original manuscript, eg the original manuscript Book of mark may have contained only 20 verses or 20000 verses, either way you will never know what was actually written.

 

 

 

I am still wondering how you got your 98% figure. Before it was 99.5%.

 

Please show us how you worked this figure out.[\i]

 

 

I forget the figure, but I have now looked it up once again, it is 99.5%.

 

I still don't know how they got that figure, as in what mathematical/statistical methology did they use?

 

Did you read the link that I gave you, which rebutted this claim.

[Guest sub_zer0]

Because it is the first of it's kind. The first copy of the Lord of the Ring cannot be written incorrectly because it is written for the first time. However the content may be incorrect ie the claim about the Middle-earth.

 

Exactly, so it is incorrect. The fact is the Bible has been scrutinized and is still correct in what things that can be validated worldly unlike the Lord of the Ring.

 

You are in no position to make that claim because you don't have the original manuscript, eg the original manuscript Book of mark may have contained only 20 verses or 20000 verses, either way you will never know what was actually written.

 

98% of it I know for sure is infallible, the rest is of no consequence majorily to anything vitally important.

 

I still don't know how they got that figure, as in what mathematical/statistical methology did they use?

 

Did you read the link that I gave you, which rebutted this claim.

 

I didn't get the figure it was adapted from 1) Christian Apologetics, by Norman Geisler, 1976, p. 307; 2) the article "Archaeology and History attest to the Reliability of the Bible," by Richard M. Fales, Ph.D., in The Evidence Bible, Compiled by Ray Comfort, Bridge-Logos Publishers, Gainesville, FL, 2001, p. 163; and 3) A Ready Defense, by Josh Mcdowell, 1993, p. 45.

 

Now if you found a place that rebutted this claim, how come it doesn't say wherer it found and how it arrived at the number?

[SkepticOfBible]

 

 

Exactly, so it is incorrect. The fact is the Bible has been scrutinized and is still correct in what things that can be validated worldly unlike the Lord of the Ring.

 

 

Scrutinized by whom?.... Christians.?. You are talking about the same christians who destroyed "heretical"/contradicting books, or the christians who added words to the "holy word" to suit there doctrine.?

 

A little while back in one of post you admitted that that the bible can never be validated 100%.

 

Now you are saying it can be completely validated.

 

98% of it I know for sure is infallible, the rest is of no consequence majorily to anything vitally important.

 

Where is the 98% of the original manuscript? If you don't have the orginal, then you don't you what it "actually" said.

 

Obviously you did not address my other two verses that presented

 

 

 

I didn't get the figure it was adapted from 1) Christian Apologetics, by Norman Geisler, 1976, p. 307; 2) the article "Archaeology and History attest to the Reliability of the Bible," by Richard M. Fales, Ph.D., in The Evidence Bible, Compiled by Ray Comfort, Bridge-Logos Publishers, Gainesville, FL, 2001, p. 163; and 3) A Ready Defense, by Josh Mcdowell, 1993, p. 45.

 

Now if you found a place that rebutted this claim, how come it doesn't say wherer it found and how it arrived at the number?

 

The New Testament is Not Variant Free

Strobel subtitled the section of his book, The Case for Christ, dealing with the manuscripts as "A Wealth of Evidence". So has this "wealth of evidence" of textual data confirmed the traditional biblical texts, like the Textus Receptus underlying the King James Version (KJV)? Let us first look at this evidence with respect to the variant verses in the New Testament.

 

Strobel mentioned that he had "seen estimates" of 200,000 variants in the New Testament. But he immediately allayed his readers fear by stating that this is an illusion, for a "single word mispelled in two thousand manuscripts" is "counted as two thousand variants". He then went on, as we have seen above, to quote Geisler and Nix as saying that the text of the New Testament is "99.5% pure". [16]

 

 

Obviously a better way at looking at this is to look at the verses in the New Testament and see how many of these verses have variants. Thus even if there are one hundred variant manuscripts on a particular verse, we will simply count this as a single variant verse. Given this assumption, how many verses in the New Testament have variants? The table below, adapted from Aland's The Text of the New Testament, shows the full story

 

....Table.....

 

It can be seen above that the most corrupted works (in terms of variant verses) in the New Testament are the Book of Revelation and the Gospels. Virtually half of the verses in these works have variants. Even the least corrupted corpus, the Pauline epistles, has almost 25% variant verses. In total more than a third of the verses in the New Testament have variants.

 

......

 

Many Traditional Passages Have been Pronounced Unauthentic, Doubtful or Changed by Modern Textual Critics

 

Do these new editions enable one to get closer to the autographs of the New Testament? In my opinion, yes.

 

Do these editions confirm the traditional text of the King James Version? Definitely NOT!

 

Let us just consider how today's critical edition differs from the text underlying the King James Version

 

.......

 

Kurt and Barbara Aland, the editors of both the Nestle-Aland27 and the GNT4, in their book The Text of the New Testament, gave a list of New Testament verses that have been relegated to the apparatus (i.e. in the footnotes) of the modern Greek New Testament. Relegated verses mean that these are no longer considered authentic by textual scholars. These verses are Matthew 5:44, 6:13, 16:2b-3, 17:21, 18:11, 20:16, 20:22, 20:23, 23:14, 25:13, 27:35 ; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 4:4, 9:54-56, 17:36, 23:17, 24:42; John 5:3b-4; Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:6b-8, 28:16, 28:29; Romans 16:24. As the reader can check for himself, many of these verses have significant content in them.

.......

The Alands provided more verses which are still left in the text but placed in brackets to show their doubtful authenticity. These include Mark 10:7, 10:21, 10:24, 14:68; Luke 8:43, 22:43-44; Romans 16:25-27

 

We see also that modern textual studies have resulted in the deletion or changes in many portions of verses that used to be in the KJV. As comparison we will put the KJV (based on the Textus Receptus) next to the NRSV (based on the latest critical edition of the Greek New Testament)

 

.......table......

 

A cursory count of the variants shown above - those that are unauthentic, doubtful, or rendered differently in the new Greek New Testament compared to the traditional KJV - gives the number to be around 100 verses. And this does not exhaust all the significant textual variants in the New Testament.

 

Thus when Strobel quotes Geisler and Nix to say that the New Testament has survived in a form that is "99.5% pure", the message he conveys is that, at any time in its history, regardless of the underlying Greek text, Christians had had access to essentially the original text of the New Testament. Indeed this is essentially what the quote above by Benjamin Warfield explicitly stated: namely that God preserved "for His Church in each and every age a competently exact text of the scriptures".

 

However, as we can see above, this claim is simply not true. (Note that 0.5% errors amount to 40 verses. We have already shown more than twice this amount of differences between the KJV and the GNT4)

[Guest sub_zer0]

 

Scrutinized by whom?.... Christians.?. You are talking about the same christians who destroyed "heretical"/contradicting books, or the christians who added words to the "holy word" to suit there doctrine.?

 

A little while back in one of post you admitted that that the bible can never be validated 100%.

 

Now you are saying it can be completely validated.

 

Neither actually.

 

Where is the 98% of the original manuscript? If you don't have the orginal, then you don't you what it "actually" said.

 

Obviously you did not address my other two verses that presented

 

What we have now is 98% what the originals were.

 

Strobel subtitled the section of his book, The Case for Christ, dealing with the manuscripts as "A Wealth of Evidence". So has this "wealth of evidence" of textual data confirmed the traditional biblical texts, like the Textus Receptus underlying the King James Version (KJV)? Let us first look at this evidence with respect to the variant verses in the New Testament.

 

Strobel mentioned that he had "seen estimates" of 200,000 variants in the New Testament. But he immediately allayed his readers fear by stating that this is an illusion, for a "single word mispelled in two thousand manuscripts" is "counted as two thousand variants". He then went on, as we have seen above, to quote Geisler and Nix as saying that the text of the New Testament is "99.5% pure". [16]

 

Obviously a better way at looking at this is to look at the verses in the New Testament and see how many of these verses have variants. Thus even if there are one hundred variant manuscripts on a particular verse, we will simply count this as a single variant verse. Given this assumption, how many verses in the New Testament have variants? The table below, adapted from Aland's The Text of the New Testament, shows the full story

 

....Table.....

 

It can be seen above that the most corrupted works (in terms of variant verses) in the New Testament are the Book of Revelation and the Gospels. Virtually half of the verses in these works have variants. Even the least corrupted corpus, the Pauline epistles, has almost 25% variant verses. In total more than a third of the verses in the New Testament have variants.

 

......

 

Many Traditional Passages Have been Pronounced Unauthentic, Doubtful or Changed by Modern Textual Critics

 

Do these new editions enable one to get closer to the autographs of the New Testament? In my opinion, yes.

 

Do these editions confirm the traditional text of the King James Version? Definitely NOT!

 

Let us just consider how today's critical edition differs from the text underlying the King James Version

 

.......

 

Kurt and Barbara Aland, the editors of both the Nestle-Aland27 and the GNT4, in their book The Text of the New Testament, gave a list of New Testament verses that have been relegated to the apparatus (i.e. in the footnotes) of the modern Greek New Testament. Relegated verses mean that these are no longer considered authentic by textual scholars. These verses are Matthew 5:44, 6:13, 16:2b-3, 17:21, 18:11, 20:16, 20:22, 20:23, 23:14, 25:13, 27:35 ; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 4:4, 9:54-56, 17:36, 23:17, 24:42; John 5:3b-4; Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:6b-8, 28:16, 28:29; Romans 16:24. As the reader can check for himself, many of these verses have significant content in them.

.......

The Alands provided more verses which are still left in the text but placed in brackets to show their doubtful authenticity. These include Mark 10:7, 10:21, 10:24, 14:68; Luke 8:43, 22:43-44; Romans 16:25-27

 

We see also that modern textual studies have resulted in the deletion or changes in many portions of verses that used to be in the KJV. As comparison we will put the KJV (based on the Textus Receptus) next to the NRSV (based on the latest critical edition of the Greek New Testament)

 

.......table......

 

A cursory count of the variants shown above - those that are unauthentic, doubtful, or rendered differently in the new Greek New Testament compared to the traditional KJV - gives the number to be around 100 verses. And this does not exhaust all the significant textual variants in the New Testament.

 

Thus when Strobel quotes Geisler and Nix to say that the New Testament has survived in a form that is "99.5% pure", the message he conveys is that, at any time in its history, regardless of the underlying Greek text, Christians had had access to essentially the original text of the New Testament. Indeed this is essentially what the quote above by Benjamin Warfield explicitly stated: namely that God preserved "for His Church in each and every age a competently exact text of the scriptures".

 

However, as we can see above, this claim is simply not true. (Note that 0.5% errors amount to 40 verses. We have already shown more than twice this amount of differences between the KJV and the GNT4)

[/color]

 

The KJV isn't based off of the most reliable manuscripts

[jrmarlin]

What we have now is 98% what the originals were.

 

The KJV isn't based off of the most reliable manuscripts

Sub, why do you say that there is 98% of what the originals were? On what authority do you get your information? Or are you just pulling this out of your butt?

 

The KJV was not based on any manuscript. It was written solely to keep the masses under King James regime in control. Hence KJV = King James Version.

 

I really wish you would get your facts straight before you come on here and make yourself look foolish. You don't have any "authority" to cite for the above. If you did, you would have to begin with. You're just pulling numbers out of the sky. Period. What a putz.

[Antlerman]

The KJV isn't based off of the most reliable manuscripts

So then all those people until you have your 99.5% perfect version, had a lot of bad information about God for at least the last 400 years. Right?

 

BTW, in order for you to say what you have is 99.5% accurate to the orignals..... ..... ...... you'd have to have the originals to compare it to to make that a meaningful claim. Wouldn't you??? It would be like me saying they're only 12% acurate to the originals. I'd have to show me the originals to support that claim, wouldn't I?

[Guest sub_zer0]

So then all those people until you have your 99.5% perfect version, had a lot of bad information about God for at least the last 400 years. Right?

 

No, the KJV is a great Bible and from that you can have salvation through Jesus Christ by reading Gods word.

 

BTW, in order for you to say what you have is 99.5% accurate to the orignals..... ..... ...... you'd have to have the originals to compare it to to make that a meaningful claim. Wouldn't you??? It would be like me saying they're only 12% acurate to the originals. I'd have to show me the originals to support that claim, wouldn't I?

 

The thing is we have manuscripts older than what we originally had, when we found those they were just like the onees we had so the copying is reliable.

[SkepticOfBible]

So then all those people until you have your 99.5% perfect version, had a lot of bad information about God for at least the last 400 years. Right?

 

No, the KJV is a great Bible and from that you can have salvation through Jesus Christ by reading Gods word.

 

Oh really!!!So it doesn't matter what bible you read, and it also doesn't matter if you derive incorrect theology from incorrect translation, so far it all done in the name of Christ?

 

Christians don't tolerate "Religious Pluralism", but they have no problem with "Christian Pluralism". what double standards??????

 

Do mention that to the KJV advocates. Apparently the HS is not doing a correct job in telling them that, what they are promoting in Christdom, is wrong. Or is it that you are not listening to HS, when he is telling you that KJV is the correct translation?

 

So which one of you is right?

 

BTW, in order for you to say what you have is 99.5% accurate to the orignals..... ..... ...... you'd have to have the originals to compare it to to make that a meaningful claim. Wouldn't you??? It would be like me saying they're only 12% acurate to the originals. I'd have to show me the originals to support that claim, wouldn't I?

 

The thing is we have manuscripts older than what we originally had, when we found those they were just like the onees we had so the copying is reliable.

 

How does your answer rebuts his answer? Since you don't have ORIGINAL manuscripts you have NO idea whether the books were copied correctly.

 

The earliest complete manuscripts you have, don't date upto the 4th Centuary, thats about 300 years after the NT was written. What makes you think that in 300 years manuscripts could not altered, especially since there was no system of checks in place to oversee the copies.

[white_raven23]

The thing is we have manuscripts older than what we originally had, when we found those they were just like the onees we had so the copying is reliable.

 

"We"? Who is this...."we"? Are you personally on some sort of "team" who wears gloves in dry rooms with these ancient manuscripts? You are personally involved in the translation process and are a professional linguist?

 

Unless you are directly a part of this mysterious "we", I think you are obligated to cite some sources to support your statement.

 

The burden of proof is on you. So provide proof.