I assume many others have heard this as well, that there are like 14,000 manuscripts that supposedly affirm the Bible and I believe something like 800 manuscripts that affirm the Gospels. Has anyone heard this crap, and does anyone know anything about? I hear people say this stuff and that's about all they do, I never see any real information on it. Just people and websites claiming it's true. I also fail to see how 14,000 manuscripts would help further the Bibles validity. It's hard to imagine that that many scripts would follow along with the Bible accurately. The Bible itself contradicts and now you're telling 14,000 manuscripts fit affirm the Bible? Anyway, is there any information on this? I'd like to know more about, whether it's legitimate or nonsense. So if anyone has any links or info to share it's appreciated. 

Views: 483

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I suggest Bart Ehrmans book link below.  Ehrman is a leading American New Testament Scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  He is a former Fundamentalist Christian turned agnostic.


I actually have that book on audio. I just haven't had a chance to listen to it. I'm finishing up another at the moment.

Cool, thanks.

Another dodge I've heard used frequently is the number of those books which DERIVE from the bible ... whereupon I mention that if the source material is unreliable, what am I to think of any derivative of that source?

The actual autographs are no longer extant. All we have today is thousands of manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts. All of them are copies of copies, and each differs in some small way, some detail.

Here is a site that talks about the 14,000 manuscripts. Can anyone tell me if that has any significance. I personally can't imagine it being very significant considering how unreliable the Bible is.

Maybe they didn't allow me to post, let me try again. Click here

lmao I didn't even look through the evolution part. Would probably make me want to slam my head on my keys.

Evolution is not the creation story of atheism. It is the theory and fact of evolution. Believing scientists who don't let their personal beliefs bias their findings and conclusions, and non-believing scientists alike, accept the fact that there are pockets of order here and there throughout the universe. But the fact that there is also disorder argues against intelligent design. There's a photo I like on another website of  Willie Wonka and the caption reads Intelligent design ? Tell that to all the children born with mental and physical handicaps.

A common creationist (ID theorist) claim is that complexity is a definite mark of design. God, as Creator, would himself have to be infinitely more complex than the universe, and since complexity is a sure mark of design, that would raise the question of who designed God ?     

That last paragraph you used is the same argument I used today actually.


You made the most important statement of questioning the validity of 14,000 manuscripts just because they all tell the same stories, but with some discrepancies here and there between the different manuscripts. What does it matter that they all say basically the same thing. That's just proof of repeated copying by different authors, nothing more.

Also, anyone will tell you that the original first autographs from which the first manuscripts were copied are lost to history, probably dust. And without the original autographs how do we even know what the autographs actually said. The Bible as it is now may be completely corrupted from what was originally recorded. There is no reason to suppose the agreement among the manuscripts validates the truth of the manuscript's dogmatic assertions.

I agree, but then there are people who will try to claim it's different people from different locations whom never had any contact with the original authors and therefore it means they were reporting things that had been witnessed and reported to them.

Granted this argument is pretty weak considering it's a report, and all the reports could be from a single source that got spread around. Like how a rumor is spread around school. Starts with one or two people making a claim that could very well be false and before long the whole school believes a lie and they just keep spreading it and often times making it more and more ridiculous.


© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service