-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Archeologly proves the Bible?
- Thread starter supercorgi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ron wyatt
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
Windmill Ministries? There's a nice, non-biased source.
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 10,696
So you accept that these inflation of the number of manuscripts continue to be meaningless to the actual truth?
It is entirely possible that Gaius Julius Caesar may be a complete fabrication but his existence is actually corroborated by extra-Roman writings and archeology; both which continue to be missing in your posts.
Isn't it amazing how a person with minimal actual writings can confidently shown to exist when supported with archeology? Where's yours?
If you think the fact that there are 25,000 manuscripts for the New Testament and only 7 for Plato is meaningless I would have to disagree.
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 10,696
Safe-Keeper
My avatar is not a Drumpf hat
I think it is significant that you still, after 3,653 posts, still haven't understood how the appeal to large numbers is a logical fallacy.
What archaeology supports Caesar, statues and buildings? We have statues and buildings for Zeus.
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
You just clearly proved that veracity doesn't depend on the number of manuscripts. Your Julius Ceasar example refuted your entire claim.
Over 400 million copies of Harry potter are in circulation. Does this make it more real than other novels? According to your argument, it does.
One final point:
Number of copies of a text correlate with popularity, not with truth. Just because something is popular doesn't make it true or right.
boloboffin
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,986
Lord Emsworth
Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 3,181
Of course all this matters little if the story is fictional to boot. Even if you had several millions of mint condition copies dating only months or weeks within the composition of Harry Potter, it would still be Harry Potter the fictional character.
Have you meanwhile realized that there are not 25.000 ancient manuscripts of the NT? And that this marvellous number includes MSS up to the fifteenth (!) century*?
(And it is hardly surprising that there is such a high number of manuscripts considering the need and desire of all the various communties/churches/monasteries to have their own copy of the NT.)
* Thanks to Pakeha for digging that out.
Lucian
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2009
- Messages
- 3,257
And I'm sure there are variations and mistakes in the texts of other ancient works. Furthermore, I imagine classical scholars get into uncoordinated fistfights over the interpretations of textual cruces in these texts (I know this is true of disagreements over texts of medieval works such as Beowulf). There are certainly problems with the Homeric works, since they were originally oral poems, and variation is a hallmark of oral composition. The thing is, though, no one is claiming that the Iliad is the inerrant word of Zeus, and while it may have been based on historic events, no one is claiming that Homer was one of the world's greatest historians.
Moreover, at least the Iliad is a single work (with interpolations); the Bible is a bunch of different writings that were chosen somewhat arbitrarily out of many and put together; the Bible has been subject to much editing.
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 10,696
Actually the large number of manuscripts is quite important. It not only demonstrates the power of the Gospel to motivate so much effort to hand write these 25,000 manuscripts, it also allows us to know with a great deal of accuracy (when comparing manuscript to manuscript) that the words in the New Testament are around 99% accurate to the original writings.
From the source cited in post 604:
The importance of the vast number of manuscripts copies cannot be overstated. This abundance of manuscripts makes it possible to reconstruct the original with virtually complete accuracy...[3]
...In the words of Dockery, Mathews and Sloan: “For most of the Biblical text a single reading has been transmitted. Elimination of scribal errors and intentional changes leaves only a small percentage of text about which any questions occur.”[11] They conclude: “It must be said that the amount of time between the original composition and the next surviving manuscript is far less for the New Testament than for any other work in Greek literature…..Although there are certain differences in many of the New Testament manuscripts, not one fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading.” [12]
http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH11A.htm
Last edited:
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
well to be fair to the man, he didn't complain too much when he got his own beating, he even helped out his assailants by carrying some wood for a construction project immediately afterwards, Jesus perhaps then was a sadomasochist and not just a sociopathic genocidal sadistic misogynist like his father
Last edited:
boloboffin
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,986
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
It's nice to be appreciated, but truth to tell, all I did was read the article in the link DOC provided.
I've even come across a reason as to why there are so few remains or fragments of the NT before the second century- the early Christians were expecting the Second Coming at any moment and it was only as the first generation of Christians died off that it became desirable to write out the sayings, etc.
Apparently the caches of ancient manuscripts were often 'junkyards' of flawed copies of the NT, as well.
In any case, of the 'ancient' NTs about, less than 1% of them are from before 300 AD.
I find it misleading and intellectually dishonest to count post-Constantine NT manuscripts as of interest in this discussion. I think that to quote such artifically bloated statistics a great mistake, DOC.
Simon39759
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,285
The gospels was important for Christians?
Really?
You'd be making a significant point if anybody had doubted it.
And... why is it so?
It only means that only a few sources served as model and were greatly duplicated. This is no proof that this source was close from the original, just that this source was 'fit', if one wants to use an evolutionary metaphor.
We know that after the council of Nicea, Constantine ordered the production of 50ies copy of the Bible to serve as model and we know that subsequent emperors did the same thing, picking up one particular version and offering it as the model.
It doesn't mean anything unless you can prove these 'original' to actually be faithful to the first generation of gospels. Good luck with that.
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
Well, DOC:
I still haven't got a response from you regarding the discrpencies between the Lucan and Matthean Nativity stories. I wonder if I ever will.
As to William M. Ramsay, I've looked him up on Wikkipedia and some other sites and have yet to find any mention of him having originally been a skeptic, then having a conversion experience. Can you direct me to a religiously neutral site that supports this claim?
As to archaeological evidence fo the existence of the various caesars, when you say that the manoscripts refering to them are all much later copies, you fail to consider other forms of evidence, such as inscriptions and iconographic evidence. Let me give you a few specifics:
1. Coins: Because the Romans wanted to be remembered and had a penchant for realism the emperors had their profiles put in relief on coins issued during their reigns, along with their names. Thus, we know that Emperor Nerva had a huge nose that dominated his face. Vespasian's profile, like that of Nero shows a double chin, as do busts of Vespasian and his son Titus. However, while Nero's profile shows an indolent, soft and rather spoiled face; that of Vespasian shows determination and strength: He was stout rather than soft and fat.
Events were also depicted in reliefs on coins. A coin in the British Museum shows a weeping woman sitting at the bae of a palm tree. A Roman soldier stands next to her. The inscription on the coin reads IUDEA CAPTA (Judea Taken). This, like the relief on the Triumphal Arch of Titus, which shows the great Menorah from the Jerusalem Temple being carried in triumph in a Roman military parade, refers to the Jewish revolt that the Romans crushed in the year 70.
2. Inscriptions: As noted above, The Triumphal Arch of Titus shows the Roman trimph in crushing the Jewish revolt. There is also the relief and inscription depicting Trajan's conqest of Dacia.
3. Busts: I've already mentioned the busts of Vesasian and Titus. A bust of Julius Caesar in middle-age shows a clean-shaven man with close-cropped hair with rater pinched features and definite ser to his jaw. The bust of Claudius shows a man with a slightly furrowed brow and a much less formidable visage. While the busts of Julius Caesar and Claudius show clean-shaven men, that of Marcus Aurelius shows a man with a full, Greek-style beard.
You can find photos of the busts of Julius Caesar and Claudius, the coin depicting Vespasian's profile and the IUDEA CAPTA coin, a drawing of the coin with Nero's profile and a photo of the detail from the Atrch of Titus, of the Roman parade bearing the great Menorah, on page 372 of my book Secret Origins of te Bible.
So there's considerable preserved archaeological evidence of the Roman emperors and the events of Roman history, including very specific evidence of what the Roman emperors looked like. By contrast, we have absolutely no idea what Jesus looked like. The earliest images of him depict him as beardless. However, as a first century Jew, he would have to have been bearded. He is usually depicted as tall and lean; but we have no idea of even what his build was like. He could have been short and stocky.
I still haven't got a response from you regarding the discrpencies between the Lucan and Matthean Nativity stories. I wonder if I ever will.
As to William M. Ramsay, I've looked him up on Wikkipedia and some other sites and have yet to find any mention of him having originally been a skeptic, then having a conversion experience. Can you direct me to a religiously neutral site that supports this claim?
As to archaeological evidence fo the existence of the various caesars, when you say that the manoscripts refering to them are all much later copies, you fail to consider other forms of evidence, such as inscriptions and iconographic evidence. Let me give you a few specifics:
1. Coins: Because the Romans wanted to be remembered and had a penchant for realism the emperors had their profiles put in relief on coins issued during their reigns, along with their names. Thus, we know that Emperor Nerva had a huge nose that dominated his face. Vespasian's profile, like that of Nero shows a double chin, as do busts of Vespasian and his son Titus. However, while Nero's profile shows an indolent, soft and rather spoiled face; that of Vespasian shows determination and strength: He was stout rather than soft and fat.
Events were also depicted in reliefs on coins. A coin in the British Museum shows a weeping woman sitting at the bae of a palm tree. A Roman soldier stands next to her. The inscription on the coin reads IUDEA CAPTA (Judea Taken). This, like the relief on the Triumphal Arch of Titus, which shows the great Menorah from the Jerusalem Temple being carried in triumph in a Roman military parade, refers to the Jewish revolt that the Romans crushed in the year 70.
2. Inscriptions: As noted above, The Triumphal Arch of Titus shows the Roman trimph in crushing the Jewish revolt. There is also the relief and inscription depicting Trajan's conqest of Dacia.
3. Busts: I've already mentioned the busts of Vesasian and Titus. A bust of Julius Caesar in middle-age shows a clean-shaven man with close-cropped hair with rater pinched features and definite ser to his jaw. The bust of Claudius shows a man with a slightly furrowed brow and a much less formidable visage. While the busts of Julius Caesar and Claudius show clean-shaven men, that of Marcus Aurelius shows a man with a full, Greek-style beard.
You can find photos of the busts of Julius Caesar and Claudius, the coin depicting Vespasian's profile and the IUDEA CAPTA coin, a drawing of the coin with Nero's profile and a photo of the detail from the Atrch of Titus, of the Roman parade bearing the great Menorah, on page 372 of my book Secret Origins of te Bible.
So there's considerable preserved archaeological evidence of the Roman emperors and the events of Roman history, including very specific evidence of what the Roman emperors looked like. By contrast, we have absolutely no idea what Jesus looked like. The earliest images of him depict him as beardless. However, as a first century Jew, he would have to have been bearded. He is usually depicted as tall and lean; but we have no idea of even what his build was like. He could have been short and stocky.
