The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 81

Thread: o-bow-ma

  1. #61
    Senior Member Leddyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Cochran, georgia
    Posts
    2,530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zeus3925 View Post
    Are you conversant in ancient Greek, Terry? How do you know that the translations are free from bias?
    I have a masters in theology from Luther Rice Seminary. I am conversant.

    We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! (taken from McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57).

    If this isn't enough the quotes from the early church fathers back up this amazing depth of evidence.

    But possibly the greatest attestation for the authority of our New Testament are the masses of quotations taken from its pages by the early church fathers. Dean Burgon in his research found in all 86,489 quotes from the early church fathers (McDowell 1990:47-48; 1991:52). In fact, there are 32,000 quotations from the New Testament found in writings from before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. (Mcdowell Evidence, 1972:52). J. Harold Greenlee points out that the quotations of the scripture in the works of the early church writers are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testament manuscripts.

    What is so amazing is that most people have absolutely no trouble accepting the veracity of ancient secular sources such as Heroditus, Pliny, Suetonius, and others. The manuscript evidence for them is paltry compared to NT manuscript evidence and the extant copies of them are written very late in time as compared to extant copies of the Greek NT.

    The columns here are explained by the categories below. I am sure that you know the difficulty of getting things to line up in a forum post so I cannot know how this is going to turn out, but if you will trouble to look you will see the evidence. Of import here is the early date of the manuscript that we have in reference to when it was written. Early dates tend to minimize transmission errors. The great number of copies allows for anomolies to be spotted by referencing many other copies of the same writing.

    Author----- Date Written----- Earliest Copy-----Time Span------Copies (extant)

    Secular Manuscripts:
    Herodotus (History)-----480 - 425 BC-----900 AD-----1,300 years---- 8
    Thucydides (History)-----460 - 400 BC-----900 AD-----1,300 years----?
    Aristotle (Philosopher)-----384 - 322 BC-----1,100 AD----- 1,400 years-----5
    Caesar (History)-----100 - 44 BC-----900 AD-----1,000 years-----10
    Pliny (History)-----61 - 113 AD-----850 AD-----750 years-----7
    Suetonius (Roman History)-----70 - 140 AD-----950 AD-----800 years-----?
    Tacitus (Greek History)-----100 AD-----1,100 AD-----1,000 years----- 20

    Biblical Manuscripts: (note: these are individual manuscripts)
    Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26)-----1st century-----50-60 AD-----co-existant-----(?)
    John Rylands (John)-----90 AD-----130 AD-----40 years
    Bodmer Papyrus II (John)-----90 AD-----150-200 AD-----60-110 years
    Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.)-----1st century-----200 AD-----150 years
    Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels)-----1st century-----200 AD-----150 years
    Codex Vaticanus (Bible)-----1st century-----325-350 AD-----275-300 years
    Codex Sinaiticus (Bible)-----1st century-----350 AD-----300 years
    Codex Alexandrinus (Bible)-----1st century-----400 AD-----350 years
    (Total New Testament manuscripts = 5,300 Greek MSS, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others = 24,000 copies)
    (Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230)


    The upshot of all of this is that we can know to an almost 100% certainty that the New Testament that we hold in our hands is the same as the one that was written in the original autographs.

    It then is up to us whether or not we will believe it.
    Last edited by Leddyman; 12-04-2009 at 02:47 PM.
    Bad Motor Scooter SH

    He that tooteth not his own horn...The same shall not be tooted.

    There could be 5 or 6 ninjas in this room right now.

  2. #62
    Senior Member Leddyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Cochran, georgia
    Posts
    2,530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    With all due respect, I do NOT owe you, or anyone else an explanation or clarification of how I worship God. I will promise you this: My way of paying homage to the Creator will not result in Crusades, airplanes being flown into skyscrapers, doctors getting shot in the head in a place of worship, little boys being molested, compounds being raided by federal agents or any other calamity. No sir. Just a little heart to heart talk between me and my Creator. Sorry, I'm not evangelical, so I don't feel the need to have you, or anyone else evesdropping on my beliefsor accept or practice them. Oh, and if you think I have some obligation to explain myself to you or anyone else, or that I must use men in purple robes or expensive business suits in order to effectively worship, may I recommend a little document for you to read: The Constitution of the United States of America. Don't forget the little appendix commonly known as the Bill of Rights. It says I can worship however I want. Your approval notwithstanding!

    Peace be with you,
    dave

    So you make it up as you go along.

    I don't ask you for an explanation of the way you choose to relate to God except as a result of the fact that you brought it up in a debate. It is not unreasonable to ask a person to define his terms in a debate. I believe you have defined them...I.E. You make it up as it pleases you.

    Never been on a crusade regards,
    Bad Motor Scooter SH

    He that tooteth not his own horn...The same shall not be tooted.

    There could be 5 or 6 ninjas in this room right now.

  3. #63
    Senior Member cotts135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Watertown NY
    Posts
    697

    Default

    [QUOTE=Leddyman;531949][QUOTE]My point is that one or the other is wrong. You get to decide which one you want to believe is right. The fact of the matter is that the two religions differ in significant ways that define each of them. Christians believe that Jesus was God incarnate and that only through Him can one be saved. Muslims hold that Jesus might have been a prophet or teacher, but that He was most certainly NOT God and did not rise from the dead. These two positions, as even you must admit, are mutually exclusive and therefore cannot both be true. Thus if one claims to be an adherent of the Christian Faith (viz. Obama) Then one would be intellectually dishonest to give equal standing to a faith that holds contradictory beliefs to be religious fact.

    That is the inherent problem with religion. Each faith for the most part believes that their religion is the true and superior one. Many wars have been fought over that premise alone. Dealing logically with it just introduces more problems. For instance as someone already posted maybe both religions are wrong and maybe Hindu is right or some other religion. Who really knows for sure. I am sure that the Hindus convictions in his faith is as strong as yours. And using morality arguments proves nothing since it is easily established that atheists have morals and morality is not the sole Provence of religion. Can I say Catholic priest's.
    I am with Road Kill on this one

  4. #64
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leddyman View Post
    So you make it up as you go along.

    I don't ask you for an explanation of the way you choose to relate to God except as a result of the fact that you brought it up in a debate. It is not unreasonable to ask a person to define his terms in a debate. I believe you have defined them...I.E. You make it up as it pleases you.

    Never been on a crusade regards,
    Fair enough.

    But if I "make it up", I'm only doing what the Catholic church, and those who broke away to make up their own rules have all done before me!

    I am certainly not qualified to get into a scripture war with you, but I will ask, didn't the catholic church selectively include and exclude certain testaments and scriptures to mold what has become the modern church doctrine? Especially when it comes to the woman's role in religion? (yes, I read Dan Brown, but NO, I'm not basing my question solely on Davinci Code!)
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  5. #65
    Senior Member Leddyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Cochran, georgia
    Posts
    2,530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    I believe that any religion that believes in the exclusive correctness of its brand of faith is inherently flawed -- but then that is my belief and i do not profess to be a Christian. However, even among Christians I find very few who believe that there is an exclusive truth defining a singular path to God. Most are willing to believe that there may be multiple paths to salvation and reject the notion of a God bent on condemning the majority of all human kind alive today or through history to damnation because their beliefs did not meet your standards of correctness.
    Definition of terms.

    Religion is man's attempt to please God.
    Truth is correspondence to reality.
    If I believe in my heart that I can jump off abuilding and fly that will not prevent the inevitable fact that truth corresponds to reality from bringing me to the ground.

    If you believe that religion is a state of mind and not grounded in fact then you can accept any religion.

    Christianity is a religion rooted and grounded and built on the FACT that Jesus Christ is God. He died on a cross for the propitiation of the sins of all mankind and that He rose from the dead and is seated at the right hand of God. We believe that to be a fact. We stake our lives on this fact which we believe. It costs us something personally to live a life that acknowledges this as fact. If it is a fact that Jesus was God, then the things he said and the incarnation define man's relationship to God. It is not a brand of faith it is a life rooted in the fact of the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
    It is either true or it is not true that Jesus was God and rose again from the grave. If it is not true then have at it. If it is true then it defines man's relationship with God.
    You are free to reject that. That is not permission it is a statement of fact.

    You find Christianity bigoted because you believe it to exclude people from God.

    The truth is that Christ said that "Whosoever will may come." How do you get to heaven in other religions? In Islam by works that please God. What of those unable to work the works that please God? Hell awaits. Likewise Hinduism requires a life in which the good outweighs the bad.
    What of those who cannot meet the standard? Eternal incarnations as lower castes. pick a religion besides Christianity and you will find many excluded from God through no fault of their own.

    Jesus said, believe in me and you shall be saved. Unbelief is a choice, a refusal to bow to God fueled by pride. But who could believe if they would? Anyone. Christ says that if they come to Him he will in no wise turn them away. Still they refuse.

    It boils down to which is true. Jesus was God....or not.

    My reason for even saying all of this is that so many claim to believe in God yet ignore the undeniable choices which that entails. Religions that make contradictory truth claims cannot both be right. As Franco so eloquently pointed out they can both be wrong, but they can not both be right.
    Bad Motor Scooter SH

    He that tooteth not his own horn...The same shall not be tooted.

    There could be 5 or 6 ninjas in this room right now.

  6. #66
    Senior Member Leddyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Cochran, georgia
    Posts
    2,530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    Fair enough.

    But if I "make it up", I'm only doing what the Catholic church, and those who broke away to make up their own rules have all done before me!

    I am certainly not qualified to get into a scripture war with you, but I will ask, didn't the catholic church selectively include and exclude certain testaments and scriptures to mold what has become the modern church doctrine? Especially when it comes to the woman's role in religion? (yes, I read Dan Brown, but NO, I'm not basing my question solely on Davinci Code!)
    If you are referring to the cannon, the council of Nicea closed the cannon with the books that we now have in pour Bible. The tests for a book to be included in the cannon were, 1.Apostolic authorship, it had to be written by an Apostle(one who was with Christ during His incarnation) or a direct disciple of an Apostle, I.E. Mark who wrote that Gospel was with Peter and constructed his gospel based on Peter's ministry and preaching. 2. Adherence to the "rule of faith" That is that it did not contradict the established teachings of the early church. and 3. Wide acceptance by the early church. By early church we mean those churches that were first established and worshiping by around 100-150 A.D.
    The Muratorian cannon is the first list that we poses to contain all of the books of our New Testament and was written toward the end of the second century. The 100's A.D. In addition to the three criteria mentioned earlier another important consideration was quotes by the early church fathers. Our New Testament can be reconstructed in almost its entiorety from the qoutes of these early church fathers. In addition Carson and Moo in "an introduction to the New Testament" say on page 734,There is early and widespread attestation of our 27 New Testament documents being bound together in various configurations.

    The answer is that while the Catholic Church in later centuries became obsessed with power and kept the common man away from the Bible in order to rule over him by using religious blackmail and even violence, they were not sufficiently organized or powerful enough early enough in the life of the church to corrupt the cannon. Brown and his ilk know that you cannot successfully destroy Christianity without first robbing it of its authority which is the Word of God.

    Were books excluded from the cannon? Absolutely. The gospel of Thomas is one of the more famous examples. It was not quoted by the early church fathers. There are no examples of it until much later, mid 300's, it contains teachings that were never accepted by the early church. It is clearly a forgery of Gnostic origin and as such was excluded from the cannon. Rightfully so. Dan Brown has made lots of money from exaggerating history and playing on people's suspicion of the church. What he has not done is prove that the cannon is corrupted.
    Last edited by Leddyman; 12-04-2009 at 03:48 PM.
    Bad Motor Scooter SH

    He that tooteth not his own horn...The same shall not be tooted.

    There could be 5 or 6 ninjas in this room right now.

  7. #67
    Senior Member Leddyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Cochran, georgia
    Posts
    2,530

    Default

    [QUOTE=cotts135;532112][QUOTE=Leddyman;531949]
    My point is that one or the other is wrong. You get to decide which one you want to believe is right. The fact of the matter is that the two religions differ in significant ways that define each of them. Christians believe that Jesus was God incarnate and that only through Him can one be saved. Muslims hold that Jesus might have been a prophet or teacher, but that He was most certainly NOT God and did not rise from the dead. These two positions, as even you must admit, are mutually exclusive and therefore cannot both be true. Thus if one claims to be an adherent of the Christian Faith (viz. Obama) Then one would be intellectually dishonest to give equal standing to a faith that holds contradictory beliefs to be religious fact.

    That is the inherent problem with religion. Each faith for the most part believes that their religion is the true and superior one. Many wars have been fought over that premise alone. Dealing logically with it just introduces more problems. For instance as someone already posted maybe both religions are wrong and maybe Hindu is right or some other religion. Who really knows for sure. I am sure that the Hindus convictions in his faith is as strong as yours. And using morality arguments proves nothing since it is easily established that atheists have morals and morality is not the sole Provence of religion. Can I say Catholic priest's.
    I am with Road Kill on this one
    That is exactly my point. I am not trying to PROVE to you that Christianity is the correct religion. I cannot do that. I can show a preponderance of evidence, but ultimately it is a matter of choice for the individual. What I CAN do and what I was trying to show is that we can not simply say that they are all right and dismiss it.

    Two mutually exclusive statements of fact can not BOTH be true. They CAN both be false. or one can be right and the other wrong.

    If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.
    Bad Motor Scooter SH

    He that tooteth not his own horn...The same shall not be tooted.

    There could be 5 or 6 ninjas in this room right now.

  8. #68
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    You are obviously free to believe as you wish. The facts, if any, are unknowable in any scientific sense. That is the essence of faith.

    Personally, I am not a deist -- I fall closer to what RK calls secular progressive. However, I will also admit that the existence or non-existence of a god has never been a very important question in my mind. I am continuously in awe of the miracle of life. I believe that if a god exists -- and that is as much a possibility as that one does not -- I cannot believe in a god that would create such a diversity of wonder, yet base salvation on how people elected to praise him. I would argue that an entity that would create humanity for the sole purpose of being praised is no god at all, but an adolescent nightmare. But, of course, that is just my belief.

    And while I am not a deist, I am definitely influenced by the beliefs of my Unitarian ancestors who viewed Jesus as an extraordinary man, but definitely a man, not a god. While Unitarians may have lost the vote at Nicea, they were a significant part of the early Christian world. Among Unitarian-Universalists, there has been a common quip saying the Unitarians believe that mankind is too good to be damned by God, while Universalists believe that God is too good to damn them.

    There are many "gospels" going back thousands of years. You are correct that they cannot al be true. However, they share a number of common themes among them. I tend to believe that the "truth" lies in the reverence of life and their shared emphasis on the importance of celebrating life and living in a charitable and compassionate manner. I find little importance in their institutional characteristics (this church or that, this book or that) or in the details of how they worship.
    Last edited by YardleyLabs; 12-04-2009 at 04:00 PM.

  9. #69
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leddyman View Post

    Christianity is a religion rooted and grounded and built on the FACT that Jesus Christ is God.
    This is why seperation of chruch from state is so important to our freedom. What you believe to be FACT is your right. However, most think it is Belief and not Fact.

    Oh, and John Lennon was no idiot. Much of what he stood for proved to be insightful as history has shown. He was way ahead of his time.

    Lets don't forget that organized religions have cause more deaths and human misery than any other single factor in the history of mankind.
    Last edited by Franco; 12-04-2009 at 05:01 PM.
    It's time we abandon our party affiliations and rather than being good Dems or good Repubs we all become good Americans. MJH345

  10. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    theres no such thing as separation of church and state in the constitution. If you can find it please let me know and if you cite Thomas Jefferson please cite the whole thing so I don't have to go find the whole quote to prove you wrong...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •