Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr Rogers
Dating is variable, but some parts are from 150-200 AD, which would be 100-125 years after they were first penned. Everything I’ve seen indicates 95% reliability, with no doctrine in any question.

Book of Enoch in a Codex is "no doctrine in question?" Absence of pericope adulterae is proof that older copies are forgeries. C. Sinaiticus has the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas as "canon." And one of oyur source with "no doctirne in question" has Hebrews right after Romans

Besides, we know very well that the Church as a hwole has theological and doctirnal issue in the 2nd and 3rd and 4th centuries and even later than that, so how can you claim that some of the codices used didn't have them? The Orthodox Curch of Ethiopia to this day considers the Book of Enoch as inspired.

There has never been a time, ever since Paul came on stage, that the Church, or the writings of the Church were free from internal doctrinal issues.

You said that from the papyri predating the 4th century, specifically the Chester Beatty Library papyri, we could assemble the whole NT.

Your own source proves this is not true!

The oldest fragments, taken together, are not sufficient for that task and that, notably, there is much variation among them.

Cutting and pasting is good for a collage in art classes, but not good enough when it comes to something that is supposed to be the pristine word of God.

As far as I am concerned, you can believe in pink unicorns on Jupiter. Just don't claim they are true unless you can back it up with more than shabby evidence, or worse, your own evidence that proves you wrong.

328 posted on 08/11/2009 3:32:58 PM PDT by kosta50 (Don't look up, the truth is all around you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies ]


To: kosta50

You write: “ You said that from the papyri predating the 4th century, specifically the Chester Beatty Library papyri, we could assemble the whole NT. Your own source proves this is not true!”

What I wrote (which was a quote):

“From these five manuscripts alone, we can construct all of Luke, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, and portions of Matthew, Mark, Acts, and Revelation. Only the Pastoral Epistles (Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy) and the General Epistles (James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1, 2, and 3 John) and Philemon are excluded.”

Notice the difference between what I quoted, and you said I claimed?

Any research into the various texts shows they include non-biblical texts as well, including some pagan writings. How does that harm anything I wrote? And what is the doctrinal significance of where Hebrews is placed?

As for doctrinal disputes - I have many with Catholics, but neither side has any desire to rewrite scripture.

Nor is there much difference between the various texts - 98% agreement, and most of the 2% has been provided for you to see in my previous posts.

Your arguments have no validity. You can blow smoke and squirt ink if you wish, but that is a poor substitute for facts.


332 posted on 08/11/2009 3:51:17 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson