This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God does not live by his own golden rule.

[Mudda]

This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God does not live by his own golden rule.


God kills when he could just as easily cure. This is irrefutable.


This is a clear violation of the golden rule. The golden rule as articulated by Jesus.


God then is clearly evil.


Do you agree with Jesus that anyone who breaks the golden rule is evil?


Regards

DL

You just articulated why Jesus can't be God and why God can't be a man nor form.
It only makes sense if you teach the power and source of life as an Essence.

How does that prove that Jesus is not consubstantial?

God murdered his own son.

 

[irosie91]

does anyone know when the "jesus" that we call "jesus" today-----was first called "jesus"?

Mispronounced by the Greeks from Yeshua.

the greeks did it? ------so how did it SNEAK
into English?-------are you saying that the NT as we have it was translated from Greek with
no attention at all to the original pronunciations even of NAMES?.

No Im saying the greeks were the 1st to mispronounce it.
The Greeks translated the Torah into the Septuagint
When Christian monks translated the Septuagint into English we get Jesus.

A bunch of jews translated the thing called
the Old Testament into greek and Jesus is not in it. I am not sure (you may KNOW) that the translation of the OT was from the
Septuagint-----lots of monks did know Hebrew
(and, possibly, Aramaic----there are a few parts of the OT that were originally written in
Aramaic)

 

[Mudda]

God kills when he could just as easily cure. This is irrefutable.

So because bad things happen to good people you believe that that is proof that there can be no God? Why?

Bad things happen to good people who pray to god for bad things not to happen, why is that?

 

[Mudda]

This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God does not live by his own golden rule.


God kills when he could just as easily cure. This is irrefutable.


This is a clear violation of the golden rule. The golden rule as articulated by Jesus.


God then is clearly evil.


Do you agree with Jesus that anyone who breaks the golden rule is evil?


Regards

DL

God does not destroy what He has created. That isn't God's nature. God cannot oppose His own nature.

Why can't god oppose his own nature? Did you just make that up?

 

[HaShev]

[

does anyone know when the "jesus" that we call "jesus" today-----was first called "jesus"?

Nobody seems to know.
The name IESous (Jesus in Greek) stems from Esus the tri-god predating Jesus, so it's possible it meant "the Esous" (tri god)or
"The Zeus" or was a mocking slur meaning "The Swine".
Now if it referred to the tri god then people have to ask themselves, was it because the image was made up of 3 christ figures or because the original trinity of
Father -Mother -Son is derived from Jesus being the mythology plagiarised of father Baal-and morning star being the son of Ishtar(Isis).

Oh gee--------the INQUISITION would have burned you up--------Now lets be calm------
LINGUISTICALLY (the rules of transforming
foreign words to English is not my thing)----does the Aramaic YESHUA------get to be
JESUS by the -----word professors?. (for the record----hubby, not a linguist, claims that
his name was really yehoshua----- but he lost the "hey" and got to yeshua---for being naughty

Yohoshua ben Parachya (spelling?)was the mentor Rabbi of
Yeshu Pandera of 100bc, Yohoshua ben Chananniah is the predated Rabbi in the OT who taught about the Judaic concept of Resurrection and mentioned the exact
bone where the best entact dna is extracted from. However Y(J)=H sound which is why the book of Yoshua was called Hosea just like in Spanish. NONE of these names translates to IESous and only one person historically is found with the name Jesus and that was a woman near the 70-90 ad era.

 

[peach174]

does anyone know when the "jesus" that we call "jesus" today-----was first called "jesus"?

Mispronounced by the Greeks from Yeshua.

the greeks did it? ------so how did it SNEAK
into English?-------are you saying that the NT as we have it was translated from Greek with
no attention at all to the original pronunciations even of NAMES?.

No Im saying the greeks were the 1st to mispronounce it.
The Greeks translated the Torah into the Septuagint
When Christian monks translated the Septuagint into English we get Jesus.

A bunch of jews translated the thing called
the Old Testament into greek and Jesus is not in it. I am not sure (you may KNOW) that the translation of the OT was from the
Septuagint-----lots of monks did know Hebrew
(and, possibly, Aramaic----there are a few parts of the OT that were originally written in
Aramaic)

You asked and I gave you the correct answer.

 

[HaShev]

If you are the adversary (Rome) and you are gonna create the adversary forbidden image-icon-idol then there is nothing more
symbolic then calling the icon
Ie(The) Sous (swine) as a slur mocking the Jews in the same way Antiocus brought a swine to the Temple Altar.
Since a bastard child is not allowed in the Temple (Deut) they chose the half Roman child of The HARLOT MARY as that forbidden in the temple son of perdition.
Even placed his lineage through all the harlots of the Bible thus called the Harlot church who symbolised the christ with Baal markings and the scarab (dung beetle).
A total mockery of religion like satanist do.

 

[irosie91]

does anyone know when the "jesus" that we call "jesus" today-----was first called "jesus"?

Mispronounced by the Greeks from Yeshua.

the greeks did it? ------so how did it SNEAK
into English?-------are you saying that the NT as we have it was translated from Greek with
no attention at all to the original pronunciations even of NAMES?.

No Im saying the greeks were the 1st to mispronounce it.
The Greeks translated the Torah into the Septuagint
When Christian monks translated the Septuagint into English we get Jesus.

A bunch of jews translated the thing called
the Old Testament into greek and Jesus is not in it. I am not sure (you may KNOW) that the translation of the OT was from the
Septuagint-----lots of monks did know Hebrew
(and, possibly, Aramaic----there are a few parts of the OT that were originally written in
Aramaic)

You asked and I gave you the correct answer.

sheeeesh peeeesh----not entirely correct----the Septuagint was not a translation of the torah by GREEKS--------in fact the order come from PTOLEMY-----(Egyptian king)-----It was done for the Great Library of Alexandria----(founded by alexander the great --<greek>)
but Egypt was kinda under roman control at the tim-------GREEK was the language of scholars and---both Cleopatra and the kid PTOLEMY---spoke it-----as did the jews of
Alexandria---(back then lots of jews lived in
Alexandria-----the translators were rabbis---if I remember correctly-----50 of them. Some jews were using greek lots. I believe (if I remember correctly) that there were some parts of the dead sea scrolls written in greek.---even romans wrote there fancy stuff in greek. I found it surprising that Christians TRANSLATED from a translation----ie the OT. Of course some of the Gospels were
originally written in Greek

 

[peach174]

You asked about Jesus.
It was the 2nd translation from the Torah into Greek by Torah sages.
Which was mistranslated and now we call him Jesus.
If we went back in time and asked any of his deciples where Jesus Christ was, they would have looked at you and said who?

Day View

 

[peach174]

Mispronounced by the Greeks from Yeshua.

the greeks did it? ------so how did it SNEAK
into English?-------are you saying that the NT as we have it was translated from Greek with
no attention at all to the original pronunciations even of NAMES?.

No Im saying the greeks were the 1st to mispronounce it.
The Greeks translated the Torah into the Septuagint
When Christian monks translated the Septuagint into English we get Jesus.

A bunch of jews translated the thing called
the Old Testament into greek and Jesus is not in it. I am not sure (you may KNOW) that the translation of the OT was from the
Septuagint-----lots of monks did know Hebrew
(and, possibly, Aramaic----there are a few parts of the OT that were originally written in
Aramaic)

You asked and I gave you the correct answer.

sheeeesh peeeesh----not entirely correct----the Septuagint was not a translation of the torah by GREEKS--------in fact the order come from PTOLEMY-----(Egyptian king)-----It was done for the Great Library of Alexandria----(founded by alexander the great --<greek>)
but Egypt was kinda under roman control at the tim-------GREEK was the language of scholars and---both Cleopatra and the kid PTOLEMY---spoke it-----as did the jews of
Alexandria---(back then lots of jews lived in
Alexandria-----the translators were rabbis---if I remember correctly-----50 of them. Some jews were using greek lots. I believe (if I remember correctly) that there were some parts of the dead sea scrolls written in greek.---even romans wrote there fancy stuff in greek. I found it surprising that Christians TRANSLATED from a translation----ie the OT. Of course some of the Gospels were
originally written in Greek

I did not say that.

 

[irosie91]

You asked about Jesus.
It was the 2nd translation from the Torah into Greek.
Which was mistranslated and now we call him Jesus.
If we went back in time and asked any of his deciples where Jesus Christ was, they would have looked at you and said who?

Day View

So true-------they would have said "who"----in Aramaic. I do not know HOW to say "who" in Aramaic--------In Hebrew it is something like "MEE"? --------I will ask the first person I know who might know Aramaic. I believe that the name YESHUA ---is an Aramaic form------but chances are the Aramaic speaking disciples would have used his HEBREW name---Yehoshua (I think--its not so much a nickname)----

 

[peach174]

You asked about Jesus.
It was the 2nd translation from the Torah into Greek.
Which was mistranslated and now we call him Jesus.
If we went back in time and asked any of his deciples where Jesus Christ was, they would have looked at you and said who?

Day View

So true-------they would have said "who"----in Aramaic. I do not know HOW to say "who" in Aramaic--------In Hebrew it is something like "MEE"? --------I will ask the first person I know who might know Aramaic. I believe that the name YESHUA ---is an Aramaic form------but chances are the Aramaic speaking disciples would have used his HEBREW name---Yehoshua (I think--its not so much a nickname)----

Jesus and the Deciples spoke both dialects, it was very common back then.
I don't know the correct spelling for who in Aramaic, but the english pronunciation would sound like B'MaN.

 

[irosie91]

You asked about Jesus.
It was the 2nd translation from the Torah into Greek.
Which was mistranslated and now we call him Jesus.
If we went back in time and asked any of his deciples where Jesus Christ was, they would have looked at you and said who?

Day View

So true-------they would have said "who"----in Aramaic. I do not know HOW to say "who" in Aramaic--------In Hebrew it is something like "MEE"? --------I will ask the first person I know who might know Aramaic. I believe that the name YESHUA ---is an Aramaic form------but chances are the Aramaic speaking disciples would have used his HEBREW name---Yehoshua (I think--its not so much a nickname)----

Jesus and the Deciples spoke both dialects, it was very common back then.
I don't know the correct spelling for who in Aramaic, but the english pronunciation would sound like B'MaN.

nope----Luke spoke only greek. It is not correct to say that most people ----at THAT TIME spoke both Aramaic and Hebrew. Only educated people were literate in both but SPOKE Aramaic. Lots of people were not all that educated. There were lots of people who did not know Hebrew well------so just about everything was translated into Aramaic. ---My marriage contract is in ARAMAIC-----why (you ask?) so that I will UNDERSTAND IT--------it is an anachronism that never went away. -------weird but true----in fact I am utterly hopeless in Aramaic.------I know a lot more german and Spanish (well---not much of those either.) More interesting information>>> in hubby's synagogue----they do a SIMULTANEOUS translation of everything into Aramaic------some people can do that------a weird anachronism. Sorry---he tried but could not remember how to say
WHO? in Aramaic. For the record----Aramaic and Hebrew are not DIALECTS of each other------they are different languages.

 

[peach174]

You asked about Jesus.
It was the 2nd translation from the Torah into Greek.
Which was mistranslated and now we call him Jesus.
If we went back in time and asked any of his deciples where Jesus Christ was, they would have looked at you and said who?

Day View

So true-------they would have said "who"----in Aramaic. I do not know HOW to say "who" in Aramaic--------In Hebrew it is something like "MEE"? --------I will ask the first person I know who might know Aramaic. I believe that the name YESHUA ---is an Aramaic form------but chances are the Aramaic speaking disciples would have used his HEBREW name---Yehoshua (I think--its not so much a nickname)----

Jesus and the Deciples spoke both dialects, it was very common back then.
I don't know the correct spelling for who in Aramaic, but the english pronunciation would sound like B'MaN.

nope----Luke spoke only greek. It is not correct to say that most people ----at THAT TIME spoke both Aramaic and Hebrew. Only educated people were literate in both but SPOKE Aramaic. Lots of people were not all that educated. There were lots of people who did not know Hebrew well------so just about everything was translated into Aramaic. ---My marriage contract is in ARAMAIC-----why (you ask?) so that I will UNDERSTAND IT--------it is an anachronism that never went away. -------weird but true----in fact I am utterly hopeless in Aramaic.------I know a lot more german and Spanish (well---not much of those either.) More interesting information>>> in hubby's synagogue----they do a SIMULTANEOUS translation of everything into Aramaic------some people can do that------a weird anachronism. Sorry---he tried but could not remember how to say
WHO? in Aramaic. For the record----Aramaic and Hebrew are not DIALECTS of each other------they are different languages.

I did not say most people.
Yes both are different languages.

 

[irosie91]

You asked about Jesus.
It was the 2nd translation from the Torah into Greek.
Which was mistranslated and now we call him Jesus.
If we went back in time and asked any of his deciples where Jesus Christ was, they would have looked at you and said who?

Day View

So true-------they would have said "who"----in Aramaic. I do not know HOW to say "who" in Aramaic--------In Hebrew it is something like "MEE"? --------I will ask the first person I know who might know Aramaic. I believe that the name YESHUA ---is an Aramaic form------but chances are the Aramaic speaking disciples would have used his HEBREW name---Yehoshua (I think--its not so much a nickname)----

Jesus and the Deciples spoke both dialects, it was very common back then.
I don't know the correct spelling for who in Aramaic, but the english pronunciation would sound like B'MaN.

nope----Luke spoke only greek. It is not correct to say that most people ----at THAT TIME spoke both Aramaic and Hebrew. Only educated people were literate in both but SPOKE Aramaic. Lots of people were not all that educated. There were lots of people who did not know Hebrew well------so just about everything was translated into Aramaic. ---My marriage contract is in ARAMAIC-----why (you ask?) so that I will UNDERSTAND IT--------it is an anachronism that never went away. -------weird but true----in fact I am utterly hopeless in Aramaic.------I know a lot more german and Spanish (well---not much of those either.) More interesting information>>> in hubby's synagogue----they do a SIMULTANEOUS translation of everything into Aramaic------some people can do that------a weird anachronism. Sorry---he tried but could not remember how to say
WHO? in Aramaic. For the record----Aramaic and Hebrew are not DIALECTS of each other------they are different languages.

I did not say most people.
Yes both are different languages.

you said ----the disciples and jesus SPOKE BOTH 'languages'-------nope. There is no reason to assume that even jesus SPOKE Hebrew-----he could read it according to the NT

 

[peach174]

You asked about Jesus.
It was the 2nd translation from the Torah into Greek.
Which was mistranslated and now we call him Jesus.
If we went back in time and asked any of his deciples where Jesus Christ was, they would have looked at you and said who?

Day View

So true-------they would have said "who"----in Aramaic. I do not know HOW to say "who" in Aramaic--------In Hebrew it is something like "MEE"? --------I will ask the first person I know who might know Aramaic. I believe that the name YESHUA ---is an Aramaic form------but chances are the Aramaic speaking disciples would have used his HEBREW name---Yehoshua (I think--its not so much a nickname)----

Jesus and the Deciples spoke both dialects, it was very common back then.
I don't know the correct spelling for who in Aramaic, but the english pronunciation would sound like B'MaN.

nope----Luke spoke only greek. It is not correct to say that most people ----at THAT TIME spoke both Aramaic and Hebrew. Only educated people were literate in both but SPOKE Aramaic. Lots of people were not all that educated. There were lots of people who did not know Hebrew well------so just about everything was translated into Aramaic. ---My marriage contract is in ARAMAIC-----why (you ask?) so that I will UNDERSTAND IT--------it is an anachronism that never went away. -------weird but true----in fact I am utterly hopeless in Aramaic.------I know a lot more german and Spanish (well---not much of those either.) More interesting information>>> in hubby's synagogue----they do a SIMULTANEOUS translation of everything into Aramaic------some people can do that------a weird anachronism. Sorry---he tried but could not remember how to say
WHO? in Aramaic. For the record----Aramaic and Hebrew are not DIALECTS of each other------they are different languages.

I did not say most people.
Yes both are different languages.

you said ----the disciples and jesus SPOKE BOTH 'languages'-------nope. There is no reason to assume that even jesus SPOKE Hebrew-----he could read it according to the NT

What Language Did Jesus and the Apostles Speak?

 

[HaShev]

Pushing Jesus on people is like the strange habit we have that is made fun of in that Geico Racoon commercial.
"When you taste something terrible you want everyone to try it"

 

[yiostheoy]

This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God does not live by his own golden rule.


God kills when he could just as easily cure. This is irrefutable.


This is a clear violation of the golden rule. The golden rule as articulated by Jesus.


God then is clearly evil.


Do you agree with Jesus that anyone who breaks the golden rule is evil?


Regards

DL

Spam bot.

Ignore list.

 

[ding]

I rest my case. Not not single source of the 24,000 you claim, because there is no historical record of a guy named Jesus.
You could not name not one single historical figure, which is liken to Gary Johnson not being able to name one single President or Prime Minister around the globe. *L*How would I know if I didn't read your link, you ask? Like I said, because you inadvertantly admited it by your poor reply, I believe that was quite clear. What you did now in your avoidance reply again (ad hominem reply) is prove your inabilty to read the scripture and comprehend what you read disqualifying you from discussing what you proved you have no ability to read or clarify sources. Plus your argument once again is the text itself is disqualified. In other words you keep killing your icon and the texts to save face. Now you lie about your responses not being ad hominem instead of admitting you don't know what you are talking about. You would have made a good DNC spokesperson, they too talk around the subject to avoid what they can't answer, then lie about it. Politicians and preachers are famous for spewing broadstroked general words without saying anything of substance truth or value. All your posts are always like that, not some, but all and your post totals is proof you just speak to flood forums and not add to the discussions or keep topics=Forum troll.
Name one post you added value?

I am not going to play games with you.

"Understanding Terminology
Greek manuscripts are the primary documents that determine the wording of the New Testament. These are divided into four groups:

· Papyri – these manuscripts are identified by the material they are made of. The papyrus manuscripts are among the most important when reconstructing the text of the New Testament. While the material on which they are written is valuable because of their rarity, the date that they were written is most important. The papyri are the earliest “direct witness to the New Testament autographs” (Comfort & Barret, 2001). Today, most are in fragments.

· Uncials and Minuscules – these are the writing styles of the documents. Uncials were written in all capital letters. Minuscules were written in a type of cursive.

· Lectionaries – these are manuscripts that are arranged for daily study and meditation.

New Testament manuscripts are usually found on vellum or parchment. The earliest were written on papyrus while the latest are written on paper. Generally speaking, if we were to list these groups out in chronological order, the earliest group is the papyri. The papyri are followed by uncials, minuscule, and finally, lectionaries. The earliest complete copies of the New Testament are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. (“Codex” refers to the book form used exclusively by Christians for making copies of Biblical writings.) Both date to the early fourth century.

The earliest manuscripts on papyrus are divided into three primary groups: the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, the Chester Beatty/Michigan Papyri, and the Bodmer Papyri. In 1898, thousands of papyrus fragments were found in the ancient garbage dumps of Oxyrhynchus, Egypt. Many of them were secular, pertaining to business contracts, letters, and literature. But around 35 of them contain portions of the New Testament. The Beatty Papyri were purchased from an Egyptian dealer in 1934. In this collection, three are very early and contain a large portion of the New Testament. The Bodmer Papyri were purchased in Egypt during the 1950’s and 60’s. This collection contains one papyrus that dates to the second century, while others date to the late third or early fourth century.

The Number of New Testament Manuscripts Compared with Other Ancient Books
In terms of quantity, the New Testament is represented far more than any other piece of ancient literature. Consider the known manuscripts of four well known Greek and Roman works: Homer was the earliest and most popular author of the ancient Greek world. His book, The Illiad, dates to 750 BC. To date, 647 manuscripts of this book have been found. Only 190 contain a complete copy. When compared to other classical Greek writing, Homer’s work is an exception. Copies of his work are much more plentiful than other ancient books. For example, Caesar’s Gallic War, dates to 50 BC. Only 9-10 manuscripts exist with the earliest copy dating to 900 AD. Thucydides’ Peloponnesian War dates to 450 BC. Eight manuscripts have been found with the earliest copy dating to 900 AD. (There are some fragments of this book that date to the time of Jesus.) Finally, Tacitus’ Histories was written in 100 AD. Only two manuscripts are available. One dates to 800 AD, the other to 1000 AD.

In light of this, the number of ancient writings containing the New Testament is staggering. To date, over 5800 Greek New Testament fragments have been found (Taylor, 2012). Over 10,000 Latin New Testament manuscripts dating from the 2nd to 16th century have been located. The earliest are in fragments that cover a substantial amount of the New Testament. Some manuscripts have also been found in a number of other languages, including Coptic, Syriac, Gothic, and Arabic. Taking all languages together, over 25,000 handwritten copies of the New Testament have been recovered. But there is more. Almost the entire New Testament could be reproduced by quotes from the ancient church fathers. “So extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament” (Metzger & Ehrman, 2005).

The number of manuscripts being found is continually growing. “Every decade and virtually every year new manuscripts are discovered. Meanwhile, the average classical author’s writings are found in about twenty extant manuscripts” (Komoszewski, Sawyer, & Wallace, 2006). The earliest manuscripts do not contain the entire New Testament. Some fragments contain just a verse or two, but still count as a manuscript. The average size of a New Testament manuscript is around 450 pages.

The Length of Time Between the Original Autographs and Earliest Copies of the New Testament

The older manuscripts are very important because there are fewer copies between them and the one first written. The span between the original writing and the earliest copy is minimal when compared to others in ancient writing. “We have copies commencing within a couple of generations from the writing of the originals, whereas in the case of other ancient texts, maybe five, eight, or ten centuries elapsed between the original and the earliest surviving copy,” (Strobel, 1998). By comparison, the average classical author has at least a 500-year gap between the writing of the original and the earliest copy (Slick).

Papyrus 52 (P52), which contains a small fragment of John’s gospel, (18.31-33, 37-38) is considered to be the earliest copy of New Testament text. Discovered in 1934 by C. H. Roberts, it is believed to have been copied no later than 150 AD but no earlier than 100 AD. “Nothing is unreasonable about assigning a date of 100-125 for P52. If John’s gospel was written in the 70’s or 80’s, we have a fragment 20-25 years removed form the autograph” (Comfort & Barret, 2001). Newly discovered fragments from Egypt have been recently found, one of which may date to the first century. The oldest piece contains verses from Mark’s gospel. The others, dating into the second century have portions of Luke’s gospel and letters from Paul. One fragment contains a sermon from Hebrews 11. The contents of these fragments are still being examined and subjected to dating methods. Scholars hope to publish their findings by late 2013 or early 2014 (Wallace, 2012).

There are 10-15 manuscripts written within the first 100 years of the completion of the New Testament. Some are fairly large fragments, containing significant portions of the gospels or the letters of Paul. When we go out two centuries from the original writings (300 AD), there are at least 48 manuscripts. At three centuries (400 AD), there are 69 copies.

Determining Age and Examining Quality

Over the last 100 years, thousands of ancient Greek manuscripts have been found in countries all along the Mediterranean. The majority has come from Egypt. When looking at ancient texts, scholars begin by examining the manuscript’s age and quality.

Age

As stated before, the earlier the manuscript, the more valuable they are. If there are fewer copies between themselves and the originals, the potential for error is reduced. “The more direct pipeline a manuscript has to the original, the better are its chances of getting the wording right” (Komoszewski, Sawyer, & Wallace, 2006). How can we be sure of the age of ancient writing? Can we actually find conclusive evidence that proves their age?

First, we might think that scientific tests, examining archaeological evidence regarding the physical nature of the papyrus might be in order. But, such tests have been proven to be inaccurate. While external factors can help, most manuscripts cannot be dated this way because of the ambiguous circumstances (Comfort P. W., 2005). So, scholars are left with more subjective methods to date the ancient writings. The best way to date a manuscript is to examine the style of handwriting. Things are written differently generation to generation. The same is true today. Compare your handwriting with that from a century ago. You will see a distinct difference. While exact dates cannot be established, comparative morphology (a study of comparable handwriting styles) allows writings to be narrowed down to differing decades.

The various handwriting styles in one time period over another help with dating. During the first and early second century, writers tried to keep letters on an imaginary top line. Slanted handwriting begins later in the 2nd century. The earlier manuscripts are written with mostly upright characters in a kind of print where letters tend to be as wide as they are high.

The earliest examples have something of a childish appearance, are rough and labored, the curves jerky rather than flowing. As better effect was sought with time, it took the form of attaching serifs to all terminal lines, and these characterize the style from the middle of the first to the middle of the second centuries. Gradually, too, cursive features appear. Letters tend to be connected without lifting the pen. Curves and loops are employed wherever possible, and letters tend to be oval rather than round, sloping rather than upright, varied in height rather than even, with long and dashing initial and terminal strokes. Within this process it is possible to date a given hand typologically with some confidence, although given scribes may be ahead of or behind the general development (Oates, Samuel, & Welles, 1967).
Another method of dating the early manuscripts is to compare the handwriting style to secular writing that is tracked to the same time. This practice is known as comparative paleography. The number of comparative materials between the first and third centuries is not large. Pagan literary texts were often exactly dated, while “as a rule New Testament manuscripts on papyrus are not” (Minnen, 1995).

Quality
The manuscripts that prove to be the most reliable are given preference. Aland & Aland (1989) have constructed a classification system to describe the quality of manuscripts. Three of them are very special quality, special quality, and distinctive character. Why is quality so important? “A meticulous scribe working on a fifty-century manuscript may produce a more reliable text than a third-century scribe who is more interested in getting the job done quickly”(Komoszewski, Sawyer, & Wallace, 2006).

Through their work, textual critics (Comfort & Barret, 2001) have identified four different qualities or types of handwriting:

· Common – which is inelegant cursive. This was most often a semiliterate, untrained writer who was a novice in making documents.

· Documentary – these were literate writers who were experts in preparing documents. The handwriting style was prominent 200-225 AD and was often used by scribes in public administration.

· Reformed Documentary – these were experts in preparing documents and in copying works of literature. They often attempted to capture the look of a professional, but did not always fully achieve their goal.

· Professional – these writers wrote in a “book hand” or “literary hand” and left telltale marks called stichoi markings, which were a tally of the number of lines to which a professional scribe would be paid.

One can imagine the immense task of physically writing long letters during the early centuries of the church. Paul had the long letter to the Romans written down by a scribe, Romans 16.22. It was labor-intensive work. Arlandson (2007) includes some interesting extras written down by scribes:

· He who does not know how to write supposes it to be no labor; but though on three fingers write, the whole body labors.

· Writing bows one’s back, thrusts the ribs into one’s stomach, and fosters a general debility of the body.

· As travelers rejoice to see their home country, so also is the end of a book to those who toil (in writing).

· An Armenian copyist says in a Gospel that a heavy snowstorm was raging and that the scribe’s ink froze, his hand became numb, and the pen fell from his fingers!

· Some manuscripts may end with gratitude: The end of the book; thanks be to God.
With so many different manuscripts, written by different people with varying educational levels, and speaking different languages, there are many textual variations. The original documents of the New Testament no longer exist and no two copies agree completely. As a result, the study of textual criticism has come about. It is the “study of the copies of any written document whose original is unknown or nonexistent in order to determine the exact wording of the original. Such a task is necessary for an extensive amount of literature, especially that which was written before the invention of the printing press in the 15th century. The New Testament is no exception to this rule” (Komoszewski, Sawyer, & Wallace, 2006).



What about Variances in the Early Texts?
As we know it today, there are around 138,000 words in the Greek New Testament. There are literally hundreds of thousands of variants where there is not uniformity of wording. On average, for every word in the Greek New Testament, there are almost three variants. The large number is due to the large number of manuscripts. Are these differences capable in changing the meaning of the intent of the original authors? No. An overwhelming majority of alterations are accidental and trivial.

Textual differences are typically divided into four categories.
· Spelling and Nonsense Errors. This is by far the largest of the categories and the majority of these are spelling differences that have no impact on the meaning of the text. For example, in the Greek, John is spelled two different ways. The same person is in view; but the difference is in whether the scribe decided to spell John using two “n’s” or one. Another common difference found in Greek manuscripts is similar to the two forms of the indefinite article in English: a or an. These variances are so insignificant that most textual critics ignore them. Scribes who were tired or inattentive often created “nonsense errors.” For example, Codex Washingtonianus contains an error where a scribe wrote the word and instead of the word Lord. In the Greek, the two words are very similar (kai and kurios) and the mistake probably happened due to mental fatigue. In the overall context, the usage of the word and does not change the meaning of the text.

· Minor changes and alterations that do not affect translation. This category consists of variations in the usage of a definite article with proper names. Sometimes Greek uses the definite article with proper names while English does not. For example, in Luke 2.16, some manuscripts identify Mary and Joseph as the Mary and the Joseph instead of just Mary and Joseph. In other manuscripts, the article was not used. Also, word-order differences account for many of the discrepancies. An example of this can be seen in a sentence such as “Jesus loves John.” “In Greek, that sentence can be expressed in at least sixteen different ways without affecting the basic sense” (Grudem, Collins, & Schreiner, 2012). Word order changes are frequent in the manuscripts, yet these do not affect the basic meaning of what is being said.

· Meaningful changes that are not “Viable.” One example is found in 1 Thessalonians 2.9. A late medieval manuscript (from the 13th century) uses the phrase “the gospel of Christ.” This is a meaningful change, but not viable because almost all of the other manuscripts use the term “the gospel of God.” Other examples are seen throughout the gospels as scribes often tried to harmonize the wording between the gospel accounts. When they did so, they “tended to add material to one Gospel rather than take away material from another” (Komoszewski, Sawyer, & Wallace, 2006).

· Meaningful and “Viable” Variants. This represents about 1 percent of all textual variants. In these cases, the difference in the manuscripts can affect the understanding of a passage. Daniel Wallace identifies three significant examples:

o Romans 5.1 – Some manuscripts read we have peace while others say let us have peace. In the original language, the difference in the word is found in one letter. “If we have peace is authentic, Paul is speaking about believer’s status with God; if let us have peace is authentic, the apostle is urging Christians to enjoy the experience of this harmony with God in their lives. As important as this textual problem is, neither variant contradicts any of the teachings of Scripture elsewhere, and both readings state something that is theologically sound,[3]” (Grudem, Collins, & Schreiner, 2012).

o Mark 16.9-10 and John 7.53-8.11 are omitted in the earliest manuscripts and do not fit well with the style of writing of the authors. Even if one were to take away these passages, no essential matters of doctrine are changed.

What are we to make of these variants? Should our faith be shaken? Absolutely not. “For more than two centuries, most biblical scholars have declared that no essential affirmation has been affected by the variants” (Taylor, 2012). In their attempts to recover the originals, textual critics have recovered at least 95% of the inspired words. Some even go farther, placing the number as high as 99%. Scholars such as Philip Comfort have ascertained that while there are differing conclusions on some of the variants in the manuscripts, “this is, by no means, a large number… And this should not cause us to abandon the task of recovering the original wording of the New Testament. New insights have come and will keep coming, in the new form of actual documents, new methodologies, and new understandings” (Comfort P. W., 2005). Another scholar writes, “The verbal agreement between various New Testament manuscripts is closer than between many English translations of the New Testament and the percentage of variants in the New Testament is small…and no matter of doctrine hinges on a variant reading” (Wegner, 2006). Think about the first part of Wegner’s statement. There are thousands of Greek manuscripts available, coming from different times and places. They agree more often than our English translations! Amazing!



Concluding Thoughts
Even though the original autographs disappeared thousands of years ago, God has preserved His word. Over the course of history, has not God worked through human beings to accomplish His purposes? Arlandson (2007) makes a powerful comparison when referencing the writing of C.S. Lewis on miracles. “The moment (a miracle) enters (nature’s) realm, it obeys her laws. Miraculous wine will intoxicate, miraculous conception will lead to pregnancy, inspired books will suffer all the ordinary processes of textual corruption, and miraculous bread will be digested” (Lewis, 1947).

Despite undergoing all the processes of time, the fact that the Biblical manuscripts have been preserved in the way they have should strengthen our faith. The ancient inspired writings are not alone - no text coming from the ancient world has the originals. It should humble us when we see how Scripture has been handed down through the generations. Many scribes spent countless hours copying and checking their work to ensure an accurate text for the generations that would come after them. Theirs was often a behind-the-scenes endeavor that garnered little attention. But, there is little doubt they understood the significance of the Word of God. Instead of having our faith shaken, we should be strengthened when we consider that Modern Greek texts are very close to the original.

In the end, we simply need to fall back on faith. We can rest in confidence that our sovereign and powerful God not only inspired the Biblical writers, but He has also providentially overseen its preservation in such a way that the Bible we have today is reliable. It is nothing less than the infallible, inerrant Word of God Himself. What Isaiah said 2700 years ago will always ring true: The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever, Isaiah 40.8.

Works Cited
Aland, K., & Aland, B. (1989). The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism (2nd Edition ed.). (E. F. Rhodes, Trans.) Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Arlandson, J. (2007, February 24). New Testament Manuscripts: Discovery and Classification. Retrieved May 19, 2013, from The American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/new_testament_manuscripts_disc.html

Baker, M. (2013, January 8). Oldest Bible Manuscripts. Retrieved May 16, 2013, from Usefulcharts.com: http://www.usefulcharts.com/religion/oldest-bible-manuscripts.html

Brown, D. (2003). The Da Vinci Code: A Novel. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Comfort, P. W. (2005). Encountering the Manuscripts. Nashville: Broadman and Holman.

Comfort, P. W., & Barret, D. P. (2001). The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House.

Grudem, W., Collins, C. J., & Schreiner, T. R. (2012). Understanding Scripture: An Overview of the Bible's Origin, Reliability, and Meaning. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

Komoszewski, E., Sawyer, M. J., & Wallace, D. B. (2006). Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.

Lewis, C. S. (1947). Miracles: A Preliminary Study (Paperback Edition Published 2001 ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Metzger, B. M., & Ehrman, B. D. (2005). The Text of the New Testament: It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Minnen, P. v. (1995, December 12). Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts. Retrieved May 15, 2013, from Duke University Special Collections Library: http://www.library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html

Oates, J. F., Samuel, A. E., & Welles, C. B. (1967). Yale Papyri in the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library (Vol. 1). New Haven, CT: American Society of Papyrologists.

Slick, M. (n.d.). Manuscript Evidence for Superior New Testament Reliability. Retrieved May 17, 2013, from Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry: Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability

Strobel, L. (1998). The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

Taylor, J. (2012, March 21). An Interview with Daniel B. Wallace on the New Testament Manuscripts. Retrieved May 16, 2013, from The Gospel Coalition: http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/b...el-b-wallace-on-the-new-testament-manuscripts

Wallace, D. (2012, February 24). New Testament Scholar Daniel Wallace of the Gospel of Mark Discovery, and Other Biblical papyri with it. The Hugh Hewitt Show. (H. Hewitt, Interviewer)

Wegner, P. D. (2006). A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible. Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity."

The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts

 

[HaShev]

missing 240,000 pieces of claimed evidence

You managed to show everyone that you
1)lie about the amount of evidence
2)lie about it being evidence

I can say there is similar Papyrus on Zeus or other fictitious characters and libraries full of fiction texts and that does not show an historical figure. Which you notice you've yet to name in their OWN SINGULAR HISTORICAL HEBREW NAME.

Fact: scholars and historians and archeologists say the NT is compiled from an earlier central source called Q.
Fact:the NT says you'd all be deceived claiming he was the christ and deceiving even th elect. All your sources use self testified text that says they'd be deceived, so they grew up in the deception as if it was truth, because that was their truth as far as they the deceived knew it , because you are only as good as your
(admittingly deceptive) source.
The deception begot deception thereafter hence your long list lineage of deception.
Once ypu pass the story down the line tainted thereaftr all is tainted and the end story is nowhere like the beginning (pass the story down the line syndrom).
Facts: the NT claims different followers are following different christs then they.
Facts: the NT mentions the other christs
and mysteriously get their sequence of death thus eras wrong.
Fact: the NT has over 50 thousand eras and lies and contradictions.
Fact: the NT never names this characters holy father (because it would hinder beinging all cultures into one fold under one world religion Rome was creating using this compiled mythology.
Fact; every oral tradition about Jesus c0ntradicts the NT exampleg saying he lived to 33 when John says closer to 50.
Saying he's from Nazareth a town not yet built by Roman soldiers till 90ad when the NT says his home town was Capernaum.
Fact: the death scene is stolen from predated Baal Tablets hence why they say father & son are one (in the same mythology).
Fact; much is plagiarized from the OT and it's characters and roles blatantly stolen.
Examples: claiming the roles of Michael to remove the Devil and act as Judge on Judgement day they magically give to Jesus even though that contradicts the OT & NT and their own ministry texts.
Fact: the guy who could heal, raise the dead, come back has never ever done so outside the self testified fallacious story from the archaic age whereby people thought spirits came out their nose when they sneazed.
By you claiming Jesus a spirit you are
saying Jesus is a mere snot coming out their nose during a winter cold.

Sources:
now housed in the British
Museum 700bc tablets in which the Babylonian myth of Bel (Baal in
Hebrew) is described in a passion play in which:
(1) Bel is taken prisoner;
(2) Bel is tried in a great hall;
(3) Bel is smitten;
(4) Bel is led away to the Mount (a sacred grove on a
hilltop);
(5) with Bel are taken two malefactors, one of whom is
released;
(6) After Bel has gone to the Mount and is executed,
the city breaks into tumult;
(7) Bel's clothes are carried away;
(8.) Bel goes down into the Mount and disappears from
life;
(9) weeping women seek Bel at the Tomb;
(10) Bel is brought back to life.
discovery of the tablet was
in Nineveh in Assyria, and its dated
as 700 B.C.
The Bel myth does in
fact have mythical elements including death and
resurrection which parallel the Jesus myth and thus are
forerunners of mythical elements in the Jesus myth.
The stone tablet discovered in Nineveh, Assyria
dated 700 B.C. is now housed in The British Museum,
and referred to by British Museum officials as the
Marduk's Ordeal tablet and not referred to as the Baal passion play as others refer to it.
Remember itcs the NT itself that reveals the punchline at the end of the joke, in Rev 22:16 Jesus is deemed Baal's son (morning star) which is why they use Baal's Dec 25th birthdate, Baal sun cross, and Harvest seed scams.