Archeologly proves the Bible?

[Akhenaten]

On "Egypt Dreams" Forum I asked for opinions about Acharya S.'s books.

THis is one reply:

Goodness Eccles you have such a rude little avatar!
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_338944a88951818591.jpg[/qimg]

"Xeper-na adrit xeperu em sesep"
"I come into being, making the transformation into light.~Sitessa"

Sitessa is her nic.

This is the avatar I have in that Forum:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/338944a8895e3e0d76.jpg[/qimg]

The only opinion I have received is unfortunately not an opinion but this:
Taken from Wikipedia:
The Writings of D.M. Murdock, written under the pen name Acharya S, are controversial texts. Acharya is a proponent of the Jesus myth hypothesis. She has authored three books and operates a website named Truth be Known. She believes Christianity is founded on earlier myths and the characters depicted in Christianity are based upon Roman, Greek, Egyptian, and other myths

Her books seem to be more involved with re-inventing Christianity than anything much to do with Egypt.
She is completely refuted by established Egyptian excavations and documented writers.

I wanted a personal opinion from one of the members. I don't care what it is, if it says they are crap. At least I am learning more about the Egyptian Religion.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png[/qimg]

Personal Opinion: You are 100% correct.

Personal Opinion at JREFF: I will do some reading and post some references and quotes to demonstrate that you are 100% correct.

 

[paximperium]

From the article "Reliability of the Text of the NT":

"The New Testament is by far the most reliable ancient writing known today. There exist as many as an astounding 25,000[1] ancient manuscripts that contain all or portions of the New Testament.'

http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH11A.htm

Here are the citationsfor this claim:
1)The Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume I through X: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to AD 325 (1997). Volume 4, page 349. Origen (ca. 185-254 AD) was one of the first apologists in the early Christian church.

2)Josh McDowell , The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict (1999), chapter 3.

I can't find a thing on 1 and have no idea how it relates at all.
However:

"There are more than 5,686 known [partial or complete] Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions [manuscripts], and we have close to, if not more than, 25,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today. No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, Homer’s Illiad is second, with only 643 manuscripts that still survive." (McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict, p. 34)

This claim is attributed to McDowell and frankly I have no idea what his justification for making this statement is.
However wiki has a great write up on his topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#New_Testament_manuscripts

 

[Akhenaten]

"There exist as many as an astounding 25,000 ancient manuscripts that contain all or portions of the New Testament."

And hundreds of thousands that don't. We win.

 

[eccles]

From the article "Reliability of the Text of the NT":

"The New Testament is by far the most reliable ancient writing known today. There exist as many as an astounding 25,000[1] ancient manuscripts that contain all or portions of the New Testament.'

http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH11A.htm

DOC,
This site you have referred to is yet another apologist Christian site, not acceptable as a non-biased authority.
e.g. It states:
125 AD – Oldest Fragment (P52): Perhaps the earliest section of Scripture to survive is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John 18:31-33 and 37 of about 2 ½ x 3 ½ inches. Known as the Rylands Papyrus (P52), it dates from the first half of the second century, as early as 117-138 AD. Found in Egypt (some distance from the probable place of composition in Asia Minor), this little piece of papyrus has forced the critics to place the fourth gospel in the first century, abandoning previous assertions that it could not have been written by the apostle John.

That is only a fragment of a copy. It cannot be verified and would not as such be acceptable as sworn evidence in a court of law.

I'll bet you will never find a non-biased opinion. I certainly can't and it is not for the want of looking. I have been on this case for about 5 years.

 

[paximperium]

You only have to notice that McDowell or DOC carefully avoid stating how old these manuscripts are. The vast majority are from the Dark and Middle Ages.

 

[eccles]

God does exist - proof from the Windmill Ministeries

Gentlemen, it is true:

"During my research I asked many Christian believers: “Why do you believe that God exists? What is, for you, the evidence that God exists?” After a few moments of thinking, I usually would get one of the following answers:

I just know it.
I feel it in my heart.
I have seen Him at work in my life.
God has answered prayers.
Because the Bible reveals Him."

Jesus, have you ever seen such circular reasoning, and DOC quoted from this site.

 

[eccles]

Textual criticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Textual_criticism&printable=yes

Textual criticism (or lower criticism) is a branch of literary criticism that is concerned with the identification and removal of transcription errors in the texts of manuscripts. Ancient scribes made errors or alterations when copying manuscripts by hand.[1] Given a manuscript copy, several or many copies, but not the original document, the textual critic seeks to reconstruct the original text (the archetype or autograph) as closely as possible. The same processes can be used to attempt to reconstruct intermediate editions, or recensions, of a document's transcription history.[2] The ultimate objective of the textual critic's work is the production of a "critical edition" containing a text most closely approximating the original.

But Gentlemen, THERE ARE NO ORIGINALS.

 

[amb]

What we have today are copies of copies of copies of the N/T. And O/T for that matter as well. Like Eccles has stated, there are no originals in existence anywhere.
With each copying the authors added or subtracted what he/she thought ought to be there or not. Such is Christianities foundations.

 

[pakeha]

From the article "Reliability of the Text of the NT":

"The New Testament is by far the most reliable ancient writing known today. There exist as many as an astounding 25,000[1] ancient manuscripts that contain all or portions of the New Testament.'

http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH11A.htm

Thanks for the link, DOC.
When I went around, I found this:

Counting Greek copies alone, the texts are preserved in 5,366 partial and complete manuscripts hand copied from the second through the fifteenth century. A few New Testament fragments are very early, dating from the second century. At least 362 New Testament manuscripts and 245 lectionaries (collections of Scripture texts grouped together for reading in public worship services) date from the second through the tenth centuries, constituting nearly 11% of all New Testament and lectionary manuscripts. Such early manuscripts are valuable in establishing the original text of the New Testament. The other 89% of manuscripts are minuscule, dating between the ninth and fifteenth centuries.[2]

And once again, as Lord Emsworth, eccles, paximperium and other posters have pointed out, this figure is completely distorted. As we see, less than 1% of these manuscripts have any bearing whatsoever on the discussion here. Franky, I'm surprised DOC used this source.

 

[zooterkin]

And once again, as Lord Emsworth, eccles, paximperium and other posters have pointed out, this figure is completely distorted. As we see, less than 1% of these manuscripts have any bearing whatsoever on the discussion here. Franky, I'm surprised DOC used this source.

By now, some of us are not.

ETA: The jury is still out on whether he thinks he can get away with it, or if he simply doesn't understand what he's linking to and thinks it actually supports his position.

 

[Akhenaten]

From the article "Reliability of the Text of the NT":

"The New Testament is by far the most reliable ancient writing known today. There exist as many as an astounding 25,000[1] ancient manuscripts that contain all or portions of the New Testament.'

 

[pakeha]

...This claim is attributed to McDowell and frankly I have no idea what his justification for making this statement is.
However wiki has a great write up on his topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#New_Testament_manuscripts

Thanks for the link, paximperium. I spent some time going over the article and the external links.
And I found this:

As with the Old Testament, we just don't know who wrote most of the New Testament. Tradition has assigned the Gospels and most of the Epistles to certain authors, all of whom were important figures in Jesus' life or the early days of the faith. It was important for the early church to believe the authors wrote the works attributed to them, since their eminence lent the writings authority. But since we don't have the original signatures, none can be verified except through textual clues.

The first generation of Christians didn't see any need for a permanent written record of the sayings and stories of Jesus. Jesus' return and the restoration of the Kingdom of God on earth were imminent--why bother preserving stories if the world was about to end? Stories were simply passed along orally, primarily as a means of preaching and convincing outsiders. But as the first generation began to die off and hopes for the Second Coming dimmed, there was a need to preserve Jesus' words and deeds for posterity.

As is obvious, I'm very new here. This explanation of why there's little or nothing written in the 1st century is fresh to me and it makes sense. If the early Christians believed that soon, very soon would occur the second coming, there'd be no need to write anything down.

 

[GreNME]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Textual_criticism&printable=yes

Textual criticism (or lower criticism) is a branch of literary criticism that is concerned with the identification and removal of transcription errors in the texts of manuscripts. Ancient scribes made errors or alterations when copying manuscripts by hand.[1] Given a manuscript copy, several or many copies, but not the original document, the textual critic seeks to reconstruct the original text (the archetype or autograph) as closely as possible. The same processes can be used to attempt to reconstruct intermediate editions, or recensions, of a document's transcription history.[2] The ultimate objective of the textual critic's work is the production of a "critical edition" containing a text most closely approximating the original.

But Gentlemen, THERE ARE NO ORIGINALS.

Careful, though: there are primary sources, and that's a pretty useful textual criticism. One of the glaring errors in debates like the supposed historicity of Jesus is that the narrative has evolved and changed so much over the centuries that in many ways the current rendition in no way represents earlier (or the earliest) renditions. This is a useful consideration for both those arguing in the positive as well as those arguing the negative in the "historical Jesus" debate. In many ways, this is also applicable to many different claims about biblical accuracy, since the Christian bible is such an evolved text of interpretations atop interpretations, not just copies of copies or translations of translations.

And don't even get me started on doctrines, which seem to evolve a great deal over varying spans of time (though progressively shorter spans in modern times) and are at best laughable in their claims of steadfastness.

 

[pakeha]

...ETA: The jury is still out on whether he thinks he can get away with it, or if he simply doesn't understand what he's linking to and thinks it actually supports his position.

Yes, I read that thread, as well as several others similar in content. I find it fascinating to see this insistence on using the same source material, even though it be outdated or misleading or, as in this particular case, home goals. That's why I asked if DOC's church insisted on the use of these particular sources.
Considering the incredible amount of information out on the web, I found it noteworthy that not only DOC, but Christian biblical study sites in general seem rely on books, ideas and opinions published before WWII, especially in a subject involving archeology, where evolving techniques and methodology along with new discoveries practically guarantee the last word is never said.

 

[eccles]

Archæology of the Cross and Crucifix

Now this will interest you guys. In D.M. Murdock's "Christ in Egypt" there is a chapter "Was Horus Crucified".. Don't stop reading yet .. In it she refers to the mention of crosses frequently depicted by the Egyptians. I gather you would be familar with the ANKH. Murdock makes references to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, so I looked up "Crucifix and found this lengthy article. Her is part of it:
"Another symbol which has been connected with the cross is the ansated cross (ankh or crux ansata) of the ancient Egyptians, wrongly called the "ansated key of the Nile". It often appears as a symbolic sign in the hands of the goddess Sekhet. From the earliest times also it appears among the hieroglyphic signs symbolic of life or of the living, and was transliterated into Greek as Anse (Ansa). But the meaning of this sign is very obscure (Da Morgan, Recherches sur les origines de l'Egypte, 1896-98); perhaps it was originally, like the swastika, an astronomical sign. The ansated cross is found on many and various monuments of Egypt (Prisse d'Avennes, L'art Egyptien, 404). In later times the Egyptian Christians (Copts), attracted by its form, and perhaps by its symbolism, adopted it as the emblem of the cross (Gayet, "Les monuments coptes du Musée de Boulaq" in "Mémoires de le mission française du Caire", VIII, fasc. III, 1889, p. 18, pl. XXXI-XXXII and LXX-LXXI)."

Link to whole article:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04517a.htm

It talks about the use of Crosses in many religious myths, very ancient ones. It talks about the Gradual development of the cross in Christian art. I have not read the whole article yet. The time here is 1:45 AM. I am printing it so I can read it later and add it to my collection.

It is interesting how many times the Catholic Encyclopaedia sort of questions some aspects of Christianity.

 

[GreNME]

Listen, eccles, have you ever heard of confirmation bias? Please be aware of this when looking into supposed connections.

 

[eccles]

"Listen, eccles, have you ever heard of confirmation bias? Please be aware of this when looking into supposed connections"

Yes I have heard of it and no, it is not affecting by study of this subject. If you want to accuse anyone of Confirmation Bias, accuse biblical scholars, especially Roman Catholic ones. They will turn a pig into a horse if it will "prove" their biases.

Look I am not saying that I think any of the Egyptian gods were real. Of course not. All I am saying is that I am seeing how many religions culminating in Christianity have many similarities with the religions of the Middle Eastern area.

 

[Simon39759]

From the article "Reliability of the Text of the NT":

"The New Testament is by far the most reliable ancient writing known today. There exist as many as an astounding 25,000[1] ancient manuscripts that contain all or portions of the New Testament.'

http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH11A.htm

Apparently, but you were mentioning this number in connection with 'the Romans burning the Bibles'.
The persecutions occurred sporadically for centuries, with decades of calm and tolerance in between. The last persecution was in 311, but it was part of a civil war between the pagan Galerius and the Christian Constantine.

As I mentioned any text after that date is irrelevant, by then, if anything, it was the Christians doing the burning.

 

[GreNME]

"Listen, eccles, have you ever heard of confirmation bias? Please be aware of this when looking into supposed connections"

Yes I have heard of it and no, it is not affecting by study of this subject. If you want to accuse anyone of Confirmation Bias, accuse biblical scholars, especially Roman Catholic ones. They will turn a pig into a horse if it will "prove" their biases.

Whether you're prepared to accept it, yes it definitely is affecting your study of this subject. Please don't let your dissatisfaction with your previous religious affiliation color your propensity to accept numerous correlative claims that have little to no lines of causation. The Ankh/Christian symbol of the cross thing is a perfect example of doing precisely that. The symbol that we call the Ankh in no way played any similar role to that of the Christian cross in Egyptian narratives and myths. Just because they look the same-- and I mean this just as much for the Christians who would claim similarity as I would the theosophists who would claim similarity-- does not necessitate them having any causative relationship. Taking simple, basic shapes and assigning a correlative relationship is just sloppy archaeology of the kind that hearkens back to a century and a half ago when people were considered "experts" after coming up with a plausibly believable story about an artifact they had no knowledge of to begin with.

Look I am not saying that I think any of the Egyptian gods were real. Of course not. All I am saying is that I am seeing how many religions culminating in Christianity have many similarities with the religions of the Middle Eastern area.

What you're doing is applying a correlative relationship and implying a causative one. However, what a lot of people who try to apply the "Out of Egypt" methodology-- whether having to do with religion, technology, astrology, or whatever-- tend to mistakenly do is get the causative factors mixed up and often enough backwards. Chances are far more likely that the varied and diverse cultural practices from the Arabian region made their way over into the North African kingdom of Ancient Egypt, not the other way around. We know of three cultural movements in Egypt where there were definite influences thrust upon the population over a period of time: the Hyksos, the Ptolemy leaders and the Greeks, and the Romans after that. All three of those are huge examples, not counting the number of times that the Egyptians and different Mid-Eastern kingdoms fought over the land that now makes up Gaza and nearly half of modern-day Israel-- those pieces of land switched ownership so many times in antiquity you have to really check the time frame to know who was running things at the time.

I'm saying that I understand what you're explaining in your comparisons, and I'm pointing out that a lot of the correlations you're giving only work when looking at things from a limited perspective.

 

[DOC]

You only have to notice that McDowell or DOC carefully avoid stating how old these manuscripts are. The vast majority are from the Dark and Middle Ages.

That's normal for ancient writings -- we don't even have a signature of Julius Caesar in existence, does that mean he never existed.

ETA

And some of the Christian manuscripts we have are much sooner (by hundreds of years) closer to the time of events than most other ancient writings. From the source cited in post# 604.

"By contrast, the manuscripts for most other ancient books date from about a thousand years after their original composition. To compare this to the other ancient writings: Homer’s Iliad is in “second place” behind the New Testament with no more than 643 copies. And of Plato’s Tetralogies only seven copies are known. Also the earliest copy of Plato’s work is dated about 1,200 years after he produced the original. The oldest copy of the Iliad dates about 500 years after the original. This is a dramatic contrast to the oldest papyrus text of the New Testament, a part of chapter 18 of the Gospel of John, dated at near 125 AD."

http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH11A.htm