Oldest Known Bible Online

[BaseJester 1]

But even if I was to grant you 100% that this story was borrowed from another, this would have exatly ZERO relevance as to whether the Bible is accurately copied, translated and represented today claiming to be accurate to the first manuscripts. Zero

A lot of people think that the prophesy of the virgin birth in the Greek that Matthew cited is a mistranslation. *shrug*

[Balloon guy 158]

I know I'm beating a dead horse, but stealing/sharing could not entirely account for this phenomenon, it must have independently arisen over and over again since the cultures in which it appears did not have contact with each other at the time these stories developed.

I also remember hearing that the story of Christ is the perfect story line for all stories to model:From the mysterious birth, difficult childhood, being forced to flee home, growth, return to seek out on an adventure, be betrayed by a friend, fullfill the goal, tie it all in at the end...

I agree the mythological perspective is not speaking to the version history of the bible. It just kind of makes all of that irrelevant.

If this were true, what a dumb thing to try to use it to somehow prove something that it fails miserably to achieve...

[Balloon guy 158]

A lot of people think that the prophesy of the virgin birth in the Greek that Matthew cited is a mistranslation. *shrug*

a lot of people thought the codex Sinaiticus failed to even mention the resurrection of Christ...

[BaseJester 1]

a lot of people thought the codex Sinaiticus failed to even mention the resurrection of Christ...

I think it's fair to say those people were lazy and/or biased.

[BaseJester 1]

Isiah 7:14

[vbnautilus 48]

I also remember hearing that the story of Christ is the perfect story line for all stories to model:From the mysterious birth, difficult childhood, being forced to flee home, growth, return to seek out on an adventure, be betrayed by a friend, fullfill the goal, tie it all in at the end...

Yeah this is basically Joseph Campbell's thesis in "The Hero With a Thousand Faces". There is a basic universal story structure of the hero myth that has all these elements... unusual or virgin birth, initial alienation, the call to adventure, initially refusing the call, finally leaving to go out and discover the truth, facing trials and tribulations, finding the golden fleece or holy grail whatever at the end. Every culture tells this story in one way or another, and pretty much all of our most successful movies do too. (George Lucas explicitly modeled Star Wars on this structure)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth

[timwakefield 68]

Just like text isn't moving, mind is moving.

Yeah but at the same time, there is no mind.I totally just blew your...fuck, never mind.

[Balloon guy 158]

Yeah this is basically Joseph Campbell's thesis in "The Hero With a Thousand Faces". There is a basic universal story structure of the hero myth that has all these elements... unusual or virgin birth, initial alienation, the call to adventure, initially refusing the call, finally leaving to go out and discover the truth, facing trials and tribulations, finding the golden fleece or holy grail whatever at the end. Every culture tells this story in one way or another, and pretty much all of our most successful movies do too. (George Lucas explicitly modeled Star Wars on this structure)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth

That would be it.I used to have a good friend who was a liberal atheist but he liked cigars so we would sit out on the porch for hours smoking cigars, arguing religion etc. He first turned me onto the book Sacred Blood / Sacred (something), which was what Dan Brown totally plagerized for his movie the Davinci Code. His poor wife would have to come out and tell us to quiet down. Good times.I had a lot of good nights with Tony. But I always enjoy arguing with people who are smart but can accept that disagreeing about something doesn't necessitate the need to dislike them. Plus Tony was a member of the NRA, and thought homosexuality was an obomonation against nature, so he was ostersized by the liberal crowd who are so closed minded about the idea of disagreeing.

[Spademan 94]

Yeah but at the same time, there is no mind.I totally just blew your...fuck, never mind.

"Master, master! I understand!""What is it that is on your mind, monk?""Nothing!""WELL THEN THROW IT OUT!"

[brvheart 1,752]

the bible is unchanged for 2000 years and nothing in it can be disproven.

agreed.

The important question is, what does this version say about what age to slaughter oxen? The possibility that we've been doing this wrong this whole time is astonishing. I'm glad someone finally found the original sheep herding manual, we've been out here flailing about like the Greatest American Hero without his flight-suit guide. We might also finally put to rest the issue of whether or not to eat water-living creatures that don't have scales and fins. What a relief!

What is the point of this post? To show you lack basic understanding in Biblical theology?

[crowTrobot 2]

Name three of the most prominent secular scholars that hold this position.

richard carrier and thomas l. thompson are 2 i've read that come to mind. will think of a 3rd if it really matters.i assume you're just calling me out for sounding like a blowhard or something and not actually doubting that it's a consensus position B)

[crowTrobot 2]

Really...the gospels are plagiarisms?Of what? the real Gospels?

of each other/Q /non-canonical gospels, and/or ultimately of oral tradition. i'm sure you've read as much about the synoptic problem as i have. you apparently just aren't in the habit of reading non-apologetic scholars if you think your position is accepted to have some sort of "scientific" high ground among all scholars.

Well since you've done such a good job of proving your point, because after all it's 'widely known' by 'people' who 'know' this sort of thing that only the people who 'know' this stuff really 'know' it...then I guess you win.

that the majority of secular scholars believe the gospels are of dubious origin doesn't seem like a statement that needs defending.

[crowTrobot 2]

By plagiarisms do you mean stories and parables stolen from other myths? (Rising of the savior, three wise men, ect. ect)

that's part of it in terms of possible origin of jesus mythology that spawned the gospels.

[crowTrobot 2]

fyp

i didn't see anything on that site that contradicts anything i've said. you'll have be more specific what your purpose was, since it just looks like a neutral reference site.

[Spademan 94]

richard carrier and thomas l. thompson are 2 i've read that come to mind. will think of a 3rd if it really matters.i assume you're just calling me out for sounding like a blowhard or something and not actually doubting that it's a consensus position B)

Just wanted to see a counter to particular academics.

[vbnautilus 48]

What is the point of this post? To show you lack basic understanding in Biblical theology?

No, everybody already knows I'm no biblical theologian. I just wanted to tease you guys for living by an ancient text that mostly consists of such important advice as"If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who touches the carcass will be unclean till evening. 40 Anyone who eats some of the carcass must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up the carcass must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening." I know, I know, this is in one of the sections of your perfect book that was retracted, right? Still, you gotta love this stuff.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

But even if I was to grant you 100% that this story was borrowed from another, this would have exatly ZERO relevance as to whether the Bible is accurately copied, translated and represented today claiming to be accurate to the first manuscripts. Zero

yeah, but if the whole thing is borrowed and stolen, why would anyone think its meaning held any relevance?

[solderz 0]

Name three of the most prominent secular scholars that hold this position.

Just was looking at all the responses today. Thanks for the posts that show the CNN story is clearly inaccurate and this version of the bible does indeed include references to the resurrection. However, for other scholars that hold that the New Testament is full of inaccuracies, etc as claimed by others in here, they are numerous, and in the majority when it comes to scientific debate on the issue. Just a few: Hemer, Benoit, Baillet, Aland, Roberts, and Fee.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Just was looking at all the responses today. Thanks for the posts that show the CNN story is clearly inaccurate and this version of the bible does indeed include references to the resurrection.

To be fair, the CNN article never said that this bible didn't contain references to the resurrection.

[Balloon guy 158]

To be fair, the CNN article never said that this bible didn't contain references to the resurrection.

However the story jumps right into the notion that this 'oldest' Bible is different than the one we use today.Which fosters this same notion that so many people buy into without any research, or in the case of crow, with bad research, looking only for the things that support what 'they already know to be true.'Truth is it's boring job, to judge the accuracy of an ancient writing, but the people that have done it exhuastively, give us more than enough proof to see that we can judge anything new that comes up because we have enough data to know what the original letters said. It's like the common knowledge that there are thousands of translation, which is supposed to imply that there are conflicting translations. Which there really aren't. Over 1,000 translations and the message of the Bible is pretty consistant through each one of them.But looking into that is not as easy as just 'knowing' that 'mos't secular scholars have already proven that the Bible is unreliable.

[crowTrobot 2]

or in the case of crow, with bad research, looking only for the things that support what 'they already know to be true.'

that's a pretty funny accusation coming from you

But looking into that is not as easy as just 'knowing' that 'mos't secular scholars have already proven that the Bible is unreliable.

i didn't claim anything of the sort. it definitely takes a lot of reading various sources on both sides to begin to understand what's going on and judge who is and isn't being objective.what i said is your statement "textual criticism is the greatest scientific strength of christian apologetics" is bunk. "scientific strength" implies that there is objective evidence relevant to the truth of christianity that both apologist and non-apologist scholars agree on, which is obviously false. the only objective strength of apologist textual criticism is showing that the bulk of text in books chosen for the canon hasn't been altered much since the late 1st or 2nd-century - which to someone trying to form an opinion on the historicity of the gospels is irrelevant information.

[vbnautilus 48]

However the story jumps right into the notion that this 'oldest' Bible is different than the one we use today.

It is different. The New Testament books are in a different order, and include numerous handwritten corrections -- some made as much as 800 years after the texts were written, according to scholars who worked on the project of putting the Bible online. The changes range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences.Perfect book, now with corrections!

[brvheart 1,752]

I don't think this view negates the christian story (except maybe in the historical sense), but rather it gives a certain credence to it. Instead of the story being something christians just pulled out of their asses, its a reflection of a universal human truth that all cultures have expressed.

I know I'm beating a dead horse, but stealing/sharing could not entirely account for this phenomenon, it must have independently arisen over and over again since the cultures in which it appears did not have contact with each other at the time these stories developed. I agree the mythological perspective is not speaking to the version history of the bible. It just kind of makes all of that irrelevant.

Biblically, it's very likely that Satan was the cause of other stories happening in other places. He's the master of chaos and confusion. What better way to trick VB than to make it appear that the Jewish God is just made up?

[brvheart 1,752]

It is different. The New Testament books are in a different order, and include numerous handwritten corrections -- some made as much as 800 years after the texts were written, according to scholars who worked on the project of putting the Bible online. The changes range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences.Perfect book, now with corrections!

It wasn't the Bible, so it matters not.In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon,[8] and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.

[Balloon guy 158]

It is different. The New Testament books are in a different order, and include numerous handwritten corrections -- some made as much as 800 years after the texts were written, according to scholars who worked on the project of putting the Bible online. The changes range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences.Perfect book, now with corrections!

Different order of books, with handwritten entries on the side, is different in the sense of not being the same.But in a culture that buys into misguided truths about the validity of the current Bible, like crow who I am about to answer, this type of inferance is done with intent...and it wasn't a good intention.