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

Charles:

"different locations whom never had any contact with the original authors"...

The Bible was written by several different authors, many of them being imposters , in several different locations, and over a span of several centuries. The four Gospels were written no earlier that 40 years after the supposed life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. It is now widely believed by scholars that the Gospels were not written by the men whose names they bear. At best the Gospels is second and third hand hearsay, which is not generally admissible in a court of law.

What you said about the validity of the Bible also inspired an example in the way of a scenario about the shape of earth. What if there were 14,000 manuscripts that all described the world as flat. That would clearly be in error. They all agreed, but all were wrong. Well, there are 14,000 manuscripts that describe the shape of the earth as flat. It's called the Bible.

I'm aware of all that. My point was that just because multiple people wrote it, and they all said similar things does not prove the Bibles validity in anyway. Different people could be getting information that leads back to a single source. Like my example of a rumor in school. It starts with one or two people and spreads from there. Often times getting more ridiculous as it spreads.

Charles:

"It starts with one or two people and spreads from there. Often times getting more ridiculous as it spreads."

I know what you are saying. I'm saying the same thing in different words. Different words, same idea.

Alright, yeah I got ya. I thought you were critiquing me because you didn't think I understood. Just my misunderstanding you I guess.

Charles: Nope, I know you understand. I was agreeing with you the whole time. Just saying it a different way.

Don't know if this helps or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

The 14,000 refers to the Old Testament, the number for the New Testament is 5300 or so. The reference to these versions as manuscripts is a bit misleading. It means only that they were hand written copies, not that they are in any way original documents. In fact, no original manuscripts exist at all and what remains are copies of copies.

The best book on textual accuracy of the New Testament is Bart Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. He shows how various attempts to make a particular doctrine orthodox led to the intentional corruption of scripture. Here's a relevant quote:

What do survive are copies made over the course of centuries, or more accurately, copies of the copies of the copies, some 5366 of them in the Greek language alone, that date from the second century down to the sixteenth. Strikingly, with the exception of the smallest fragments, no two of these copies are alike in all their particulars. (p. 27)

Since no autographs (originals) remain, fundamentalists are left with the problem of accuracy of the Bible as the word of God. They usually rely on Psalm 12, verses 6 and 7:

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

That this constitutes circular reasoning—the Bible guaranteeing its own authenticity—does not seem to faze them. They argue that God has seen to it that his word is preserved. But then why not see to that the autographs were preserved? After all omnipotence has no limits.

Interesting, and I definitely need to look into that book. I'm a fan of Ehrman, which makes me quite surprised I never heard of that book.

It shows how the various ideas of who and what Christ was influenced the way scripture was corrupted, with a chapter devoted to each notion.

If a billion people endorse a stupid idea - it's still a stupid idea.

RSS

About

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service