Rationalists/Atheists: Don’t Too Readily Dismiss the Believer

moe · 01-03-09, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cephus

You know, that would be interesting since the New Testament wasn't broken up into verses until the 1557 translation done by William Wittingham. The OT has used a Jewish system of section, paragraph and phrasal divisions that are largely maintained in the Christian Bible, but certainly not the NT.

The fact that you don't even know that proves that you're just quoting out of other people's work, entirely without credit.

Anyone surprised?

On the contrary I am well aware of it.

LOL .Pretty tough argument you have there Cephus. It is common practice to identify the ancient quotes etc by the verse system we use today, For example

Quote:

NT Manuscripts - Papyri
Location/Catalog Number
Saint Petersburg, Russian National Library Gr. 258A

Contents
1 Corinthians 1:17-22, 2:9-12, 2:14, 3:1-3, 3:5-6, 4:3-5:5, 5:7-8, 6:5-9, 6:11-18, 7:3-6, 7:10-14, with even the surviving verses often damaged (so much so that Tischendorf was unable to tell whether the fragments he had were of five or six leaves).

Date/Scribe
Dated paleographically to the seventh century. Some older manuals give its date as the fifth century, but this was based on comparison with uncial manuscripts; a comparison with the style of papyri resulted in the change.

Description and Text-type
Aland and Aland list P11 as Category II. Von Soden listed its text as "H or I."

In fact the text of P11 seems fairly ordinary (though its fragmentary nature makes a firm determination difficult; the Nestle text, for instance, cites it explicitly only about fifteen times, most often with the Alexandrian group A C 33, but also, with the Byzantine and "Western" texts; there appears to be some slight kinship with the later members of Family 1739, particularly 1881. Overall, the best description of its text is probably "mixed," although most of the readings are old. It does not appear to have any immediate relatives).

The most noteworthy thing about P11, therefore, is not its text but its history: It was the first biblical papyrus to be discovered (Tischendorf observed it in 1862), and the only one to be cited in Tischendorf (as Q).
Other Symbols Used for this Manuscript

As to what I am referring concerning the early church fathers is along this line.
BIBLE VERSIONS ... Church Fathers

Quote:

Quote: John Burgon has catalogued more than 86,000 citations of the New Testament in the writings of the early church fathers who lived before A.D.325. Thus we observe that there is so much more evidence for the reliability of the New Testament text than any other comparable writings in the ancient world." (Ref: M1)

So how could there be 86,000 pre 325 AD citations from a body of work that had not yet been written?

Moe

Graffight · 01-04-09, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cephus

You know, that would be interesting since the New Testament wasn't broken up into verses until the 1557 translation done by William Wittingham. The OT has used a Jewish system of section, paragraph and phrasal divisions that are largely maintained in the Christian Bible, but certainly not the NT.

The fact that you don't even know that proves that you're just quoting out of other people's work, entirely without credit.

Anyone surprised?

Funny how he has nothing to say about anything else in the post...

Cephus · 01-04-09, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moe

It is common practice to identify the ancient quotes etc by the verse system we use today,

Come on, you got caught, what you said was this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by moe

Some how these wily devils actually knew the names of the letters and books of the NT and verses in them before they were even written?

Obviously those "wily devils" could never have known the verses, as you claim, before they were even written. Admit you screwed up and move on.

Graffight · 01-04-09, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cephus

Come on, you got caught, what you said was this:

Obviously those "wily devils" could never have known the verses, as you claim, before they were even written. Admit you screwed up and move on.

still he doesn't respond to the important stuff...lol

moe · 01-04-09, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cephus

Come on, you got caught, what you said was this:

Obviously those "wily devils" could never have known the verses, as you claim, before they were even written. Admit you screwed up and move on.

I truly do not understand why you insist on using a non argument to support your position. This silly contention of yours that I do not know when chapter and verse were first introduced into the bible is asinine at best. Especially when you consider the origins and history of the bible are common topics in Sunday school classes pulpit sermons and church bible study nights not only in America but around the world. It is not a big secret.

Anyway regardless of your motives for not actually addressing the issue's , Anyone who is truly interested in an opposing view to Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus or the Jesus Seminar's approach to textual criticism may I suggest,

Misquoting Truth written by Timothy Paul Jones. [Intervarsity Press 2007 ] Jones rebuts Ehrman concerning NT manuscripts. But he does it in a very down to earth easy to read format in only 150 pages. He goes into detail concerning the additions and changes in the various manuscripts and there are some changes. But they are insignificant to the overall truth of the NT. Nothing to fret about.

Moe

DarwinsGauntlet · 01-08-09, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graffight

Here's an interesting post i just read from John Shore. He has some really good perspective on Christianity, I agree with a lot of what he says. Enjoy

Here's an interesting post by John Shore

There's an awesome disparity between the real estate of the mind yet to be claimed by Science, and making a case to believe in a divine creator. How do you justify that jump?

You can't conclusively explain The Taos Hum for example, so does that mean you should believe in Thor, or Zombies? As a rule of thumb, it's unnecessary to "go native" because you don't understand something, when you can actively seek the answers along with Science, and accept the question is still open. The notion that an answer is required for you to comfortably function is as fatuous as the faith belief itself.

Science has progressively over time, taken ownership of a whole host of religious claims of the once believed unanswerable. Science has battered divine creation and theological claims to the point of obsoleteness century after century with its eyes fixed on the future. Neuroscientists have been charting the map of the human mind piece by piece, revealing more and more each decade that passes. There's no reason to believe we won't have all the answers some day. Isn't it an exciting and noble pursuit to realize the end of that, and wouldn't you want to revel in the glory of its truth when we do arrive there? Do you really want to be in on the delusional bandwagon of primitive superstition when progress bears its fruit?

MDM · 03-22-09, 02:17 AM

Re: the OP - flawed and not worth discussing.

A lot of interesting posts in the rest of the thread though.

HelloDollyLlama · 03-22-09, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graffight

Here's an interesting post i just read from John Shore. He has some really good perspective on Christianity, I agree with a lot of what he says. Enjoy

Here's an interesting post by John Shore

I'm not going to read all nine million posts here.

I'll assume that somebody already shot down the preposterous notion that atheists have no love in their lives.

MDM · 03-22-09, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HelloDollyLlama

...
I'll assume that somebody already shot down the preposterous notion that atheists have no love in their lives.

Of course atheists have love! - A love for KILLING!!!

Oh, no wait, I'm thinking of ninja.
Never mind.

YouTube - Ask A Ninja: Question 9 "Ninja Love"

03-22-09, 02:17 AM	#317
MDM Advisor Join Date: Oct 2008 Last Seen: 09-24-09 05:27 AM Location: FL Posts: 432 Thanks: 230 Thanked 109 Times in 69 Posts Lean: Independent Gender:	Re: Rationalists/Atheists: Don’t Too Readily Dismiss the Believer Re: the OP - flawed and not worth discussing. A lot of interesting posts in the rest of the thread though.
	__________________ When faced with the ridiculous, the only appropriate response is ridicule. "Gentlemen, I despise each and every one of you." - Toyama Koichi

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Graffight For This Useful Post:
DarkWizard12, moe

The Following User Says Thank You to DarwinsGauntlet For This Useful Post:
MDM