BILL NYE VS KEN HAM: TONIGHT AT 7 PM
February 25, 2014 at 8:58 pm
(This post was last modified: February 25, 2014 at 9:03 pm by Rampant.A.I..)
(February 25, 2014 at 6:17 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:(February 25, 2014 at 4:59 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: No changes to meaning to be seen at all.
This is such a red herring.
1. Christians believe the original texts are infallible, not any one particular English translation of them.
Cool, do you have any original texts to present? Last I checked, the Q source was still missing from all current versions.
(February 25, 2014 at 6:17 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 2. The King James Bible is not the first translation of the Bible into English.
Yes, and none of them directly translated from original source documents.
(February 25, 2014 at 6:17 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 3. There are numerous English translations today that are based off of older manuscripts written in the original languages.
Translations of source material translated again, with problematic word translations, like "Virgin".
(February 25, 2014 at 6:17 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 4. Fragments of John’s gospel actually date to as early as 90AD, not the 4th Century.
The Nag Hamadi scriptures date as early as 2 AD, and yet are not included in contemporary translations of the bible because they don't match the canon of current interpretations of the bible.
(February 25, 2014 at 6:17 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 5. We could re-construct the entire New Testament just from the quotations of it by the early church fathers.
"Parts of the New Testament have been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian. The dates of these manuscripts range from c. 125 (the John Rylands manuscript, P52; oldest copy of John fragments) to the introduction of printing in Germany in the 15th century. The vast majority of these manuscripts date after the 10th century. Although there are more manuscripts that preserve the New Testament than there are for any other ancient writing, the exact form of the text preserved in these later, numerous manuscripts may not be identical to the form of the text as it existed in antiquity."
So are you saying that a wide variety of fragment sources of varying dates = Veracity?
(February 25, 2014 at 6:17 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 6. The New Testament is the best attested work we have from antiquity.
Speaking of Red Herrings, this has absolutely nothing to do with the veracity of the text.
(February 25, 2014 at 6:17 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 7. Did you even bother reading the reference articles for that image? I did and I think it’d be a good idea for you to do so before you post something like this again.
Facts matter.
You have facts to present? Where are they? All I see is a bunch of righteous indignation and crying over an infographic.
The only red herring here is "Well, a bunch of people back up the New Testament as being copied from earlier versions of the New Testament: So as you can clearly see, the New Testament is in fact the word of God!"
