Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 65757

[trying to explain why early bible fragments don't match the KJV]

I'm not too keen on the Sinaiticus's accuracy (or the Codex Vaticanus, or the dead sea scrolls for that matter).

It maybe one of the oldest bible texts, but it resembles more of a first draft than anything due to all the insertions and omissions. It doesn't even agree with other scripts that are considered very old (and even those other scripts don't agree with each other).

The only reason I think there are occasional pieces are found else where is because they needed the scrap parchment. [...]

Why isn't there any super old texts of the bible that closely match today's King James bible or the Textus Receptus (which there is not longer a copy of)?
It is said either the Textus Receptus was lost, or never was a single document, but rather a consensus of trusted translated scripts which consisted of the majority of texts found with very little variation minus any printing errors that may have occured as printing was a new technology (which is about 95% of old texts avalaible).
Even so, if the original was really lost, we shouldn't despair, as the copies or related texts are essentially the same due to the copying method. The oldest text is not needed for validation of the bible.

The problem is, people and some bible scholars don't recognize this, so they take the oldest script they can possibly find, fill in the missing places with other scripts to formulate their new translations of the bible or use it to prove the bible's validity, but get stuck when people say the old version isn't the same as newer scripts or evidence for X religion is still much older.

Why do these old erroneous scripts still exist? Why are they more likely to be kept? For the same illogical reasoning above. They don't realize the power in the copying method used. So when they come across something "different" they try to preserve it, whether it be hiding it in a library hundreds of years ago, or archeologists and librarians finding it now.
The only thing the Codex Sinaiticus proves is that bible did exist back then.


Rinji, Rapture Ready 34 Comments [9/20/2009 3:04:34 AM]
Fundie Index: 30
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
Nathan the Wise

Yeah. You might want to look at the dates of composition/collation of the Bible, and compare those with the dates printing was invented. Bit of a gap, I think you'll find.

9/20/2009 3:37:02 AM

Godbuster

I just don't get. Despite the obvious manipulation of your religion to benefit the powerful and greedy, you still cling to it. It's not even your bible, it's Hebrew!

9/20/2009 3:49:20 AM

Kinderklein

Ehm.. did he just say the Bible wasn't inerrant until they edited it?

9/20/2009 4:16:13 AM

Woody

"For the same illogical reasoning above"

Well, you got one thing right in amongst all the rambling!

9/20/2009 4:47:04 AM

aaa

This is going to get interesting.

9/20/2009 5:01:09 AM

Philbert McAdamia

God hisself made several drafts, trying to get it right, and he needed the parchment so he did what, wrote on both sides? Couldn't just "breathe" up a few more reams of the stuff?
And who is it that "goes back hundreds of years" to hide their phony new versions in libraries just to fool us? Oooohh, it's the devil's work, I tells ya! Magick. Voodoo. It's just evil. EEEeeeeevilllllll.

9/20/2009 5:22:21 AM

shykid

Right, so let me get this straight: the bible was always inerrant, but it wasn't reeeaally inerrant until they edited it to fix it?

...okay, buddy, whatever you say, dude.

9/20/2009 5:28:17 AM

Porky Pine

Fell asleep half-way through.

9/20/2009 6:02:42 AM

Tallyho

This is spiral logic - it descends in ever decreasing circles until it dissappears up it's own ass!

9/20/2009 6:52:04 AM

Clown

Bibliography fail.

9/20/2009 7:26:30 AM



Or;

Every version is a scattershot collection of ancient scrolls with a continuous history of rewrites and ommisions. Many came from cultures like Egypt, Babylon and Sumeria that believed in multiple Gods and therfor disagree with Christianity. None mention Jesus although they and others have deitys that lived the same life

KJV is ubique only for being the most unreliable until the Mormans appeared

9/20/2009 8:33:16 AM

Canadiest

Or;

Every version is a scattershot collection of ancient scrolls with a continuous history of rewrites and ommisions. Many came from cultures like Egypt, Babylon and Sumeria that believed in multiple Gods and therfor disagree with Christianity. None mention Jesus although they and others have deitys that lived the same life

KJV is ubique only for being the most unreliable until the Mormans appeared

9/20/2009 8:33:47 AM

El Zorro

Some Christians needs to realize that there's nothing magical about the KJV, but quite often it is assumed to be the standard that all other versions and scripts are compared to.

9/20/2009 8:41:14 AM



Why would the all powerful God need a first draft?

9/20/2009 9:02:12 AM

szena

I can't stop laughing at the idea that an omnipotent deity needed to write several drafts of his holy word before he got it right.

9/20/2009 9:43:45 AM



@Canadiest:
The mormons use the KJV, they just have another book of crazy bullshit they carry around with it.

9/20/2009 9:45:40 AM

Xotan

How can you be so stupid. You should get a prize for it!

Texts were copied by hand and that led to errors creeping into the transcriptions - rather like a written version of Chinesse Whispers... All very slowly.

Also, many texts were suppressed because they did not agree with the policies of the Emperor Constantine. Hence the Christian Bible of today is essentially the outcome of the political needs of a temporal ruler, and thus has little enough to do with being the revealed, full and inerrant word of god.

9/20/2009 9:56:34 AM

Beeblebrox

a first draft...insertions and omissions...consensus of trusted translated scripts...variation...printing errors...essentially the same...erroneous scripts...

These are not phrases I expect to see used in connection with a document purportedly created by the direct inspiration of an all-powerful, all-knowing being.

9/20/2009 10:15:33 AM

Beeblebrox

a first draft...insertions and omissions...consensus of trusted translated scripts...variation...printing errors...essentially the same...erroneous scripts...

These are not phrases I expect to see used in connection with a document purportedly created by the direct inspiration of an all-powerful, all-knowing being.

9/20/2009 10:21:31 AM

Caustic Gnostic

1. Chamber a round.
2. Point sidearm along leg.
3. Smoothly squeeze trigger.

*golf clap* Well done, Rinji.

9/20/2009 10:58:19 AM

Elphada

I have an image of a guy at a desk wearing a white robe and sporting long white hair. Beside his desk there's a trashcan filled with balled up paper and quite a few around the trashcan.

9/20/2009 12:22:23 PM

Painful

Wait, by that logic then, when applied to prophets - that god did a few rough drafts first - then doesn't Islam become the one and true religion god intended? If so, we are all screwed even more!

Thank "god" for royal logic fail?

9/20/2009 1:08:36 PM

Old Viking

We have never had anything resembling a first draft (or an original rewrite, either). The earliest biblical manuscripts we have are not even copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies.

Oh, and the KJV is considered by most scholars to be one of the poorest and least accurate translations out there.

9/20/2009 1:51:24 PM

Blackvoice

copying method

Did they use a scanner?

9/20/2009 2:30:21 PM

WMDKitty

*Headdesk*

Can't possibly be that the KJV is a mistranslation of a mistranslation, no, the ancient copies MUST be in error....

9/20/2009 2:55:45 PM
1 2