Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do we know when the Gospels were written?
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 91 of 123 (361225)
11-03-2006 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by truthlover
11-03-2006 10:10 AM


Greetings,
quote:
I can see someone asserting this. Stating it like it's fact and that the Gospels were still changing in his time is a large presumption.
  —truthlover
The facts are clear - Justin's words do NOT match our modern Bibles. For instance, at the Jordan, Justin says a "fire was kindled" :
And then, when Jesus had gone to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing, and when He had stepped into the water, a fire was kindled in the Jordan
This is not found in any Gospel.
Justin's writings are full of such oddities which do NOT match our modern Gospels at all.
quote:
Do you have any references suggesting the Gospel was changed from "this day I have begotten thee?" at Christ's baptism. Who are you saying quoted it that way or what manuscript are you saying has it that way?
  —truthlover
Yes.
The original reading "this day have I begotten thee" is found in :
* Justin (Dial., 88),
* Clement of Alexandria (Paed., I, 25, 2),
* Origen (Comm. on John),
* Methodius (Symp. 9),
* Lactantius (Div. Inst. IV, 15),
* Augustine (Enchiridion 49),
* Faustus,
* Tyconius,
* Hilary,
* Juvencus.
In addition, this form also appears to be the one known to
* the authors of the Gospel According to the Hebrews,
* the Gospel According to the Ebionites (as qtd. by Epiphanius),
* the Didascalia (93:26),
and several of the later apocryphal Acts, such as
* the Martyrdom of Peter and Paul (par 1)
* The Acts of Peter and Paul (par 29).
As leading expert Bart Ehrman notes, "among sources of the second and third centuries, it is virtually the only reading to be found; down to the sixth century it occurs in witnesses as far flung as Asia Minor, Palestine, Alexandria, North Africa, Rome, Gaul, and Spain".
This change to the NT is well-known by scholars. But of course, few believers are even AWARE of it.
Iasion
P.S
Pardon me about the "eighth" day, whoops, that one was from memory.
Edited by Iasion, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by truthlover, posted 11-03-2006 10:10 AM truthlover has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 92 of 123 (361229)
11-03-2006 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Equinox
11-03-2006 12:14 PM


Greetings,
quote:
I can supply a way to find out about this and other similar changes in excruciating detail. Many of them are carefully laid out and discussed in the book “the Orthodox corruption of Scripture”, available here:
  —equinox
Thanks.
Yes, that is the standard work for this issue.
Recommended.
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Equinox, posted 11-03-2006 12:14 PM Equinox has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 93 of 123 (361233)
11-03-2006 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Equinox
11-03-2006 12:23 PM


Re: The Q document and when the bible was written
Greetings,
quote:
P52 is a good example, reliably dated to 120-130,
  —equinox
Pardon me.
I don't agree there.
P52 is variously dated :
* 2nd C.
* early 2nd C.
* mid-late 2nd C.
The latest dating, by Schmidt IIRC, is 170 +/- 25.
But I agree that apologists date this as EARLY as possible and then claim it proves G.John existed then (which it does not.)
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Equinox, posted 11-03-2006 12:23 PM Equinox has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 94 of 123 (361665)
11-04-2006 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Kapyong
11-03-2006 5:58 PM


Re: The Q document and when the bible was written
Hmmm...
I did not say that. I would appreciate if you would read my comments properly.
I said Clement repeats SAYINGS of Jesus. He does NOT "quote" the Gospels.
I know you said that. I was saying that I would be okay if you had said something a little different, but your assertion here is too much for the evidence.
I offered an argument with facts, you simply replied with an opinion with no facts or argument.
You made an interpretation from some facts on a web site that were presented quite in an unbiased manner on the page you linked to. You drew conclusions, I stated that your conclusions only possibly follow. They aren't proven by the data you presented. We both made an argument from the same facts. I think this post makes it clear my arguments are better. You probably won't agree, but that's what debates are all about.
No he didn't.
You didn't even read my page on Clement did you?
I showed that Clement quotes :
* the Tanakh as WRITTEN scripture about 100 times.
* Paul as wise WRITINGS about 100 times.
I did not read the whole web site you linked to. I did read the whole page you linked to.
What I said is that Clement quoted them loosely. In response, you state that somewhere on a web site you linked, it says Clement refers to the Tanakh and Paul's writing as writings about 100 times.
This doesn't even address what I said, which is that Clement always quotes loosely, and that just because he said, "It is said," doesn't prove that it can't be a writing and has to be a verbal quote.
So, your claim is wrong - Clement DOES quote, 100s of times from BOOKS of which he NAMES the source.
I said nothing to which this statement of yours is even relevant.
What?
He DOES quote from Tanakh and Paul as WRITINGS.
That does not mean that he had those writings sitting in front of him. The looseness with which Clement quotes the Tanakh and Paul pretty much proves he didn't have them in front of him, or he would have quoted them more accurately. I have examples in the next section of this post, but first:
quote:
"For somewhere he says, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.'"
That's from I Clement 15. It seems unlikely that you'd be willing to admit the obvious, which is that by "somewhere" he means in some writing, but I think any reader of our little debate here would agree with me. This is pretty conclusive evidence that he is quoting from some Gospel, even if it's Q or the Gospel to the Hebrews, as a writing, that he doesn't have in front of him but has seen at some time.
He uses the exact same wording in ch. 46, in fact, in quoting Ps 18:25,26, where he says "and again it says in another place" before quoting it.
An example of why he would use "written" in one place and "said" in another is given in ch. 36 of Clement. He quotes Heb 1:7, saying, "It is written." Why? Because he is quoting something that was only written. It is not a quote attributed to a person verbally. But then he quotes Ps 2:7-8 (or possibly Heb 1:5) with "of his Son the Master spoke thus:" Why is he using speaking now? Because even though this is written, it is a verbal quote.
This explains why Clement would mention "the Master said" or "Jesus spoke." He does the same with Ps 2:7-8, even though we know that he knew it was written in the Tanakh.
you totally ignored the fact that the passage supposedly from Matthew is found in two places EIGHT chapters apart.
No, I didn't. Are you not aware how common this is? In fact the Gospel of Matthew has a quote in it from the Tanakh that he attributes to Jeremiah that comes from Zechariah with an extra part that might possibly be a misquote of a verse in Jeremiah. This is not uncommon. Look at a reference Bible sometime and look how many references in quotes have a double reference, or more, because they're not sure where a quote came from.
As far as Clement himself goes, I opened randomly to a page in his letter just now. In chapter 17, he quotes Job as saying, "No one is clean from stain; no, not even if he lasts but for a day." The best the editor can do is suggest comparing this quote to Job 14:4-5, because it's so loosely quoted. In the very same paragraph he quotes Moses from Exod 3 and 4, 22 verses apart, as though it were one sentence, and then he follow it by quoting Moses as saying, "I'm only steam from a pot," a quote the editor is unable to find anywhere.
That's random. The letter of Clement is famous for this sort of quoting. Thus, the fact that the part I quoted pulls from two parts of Matthew, making one statement out of them, is just normal for Clement.
To quote the famous and respected J.B. Lightfoot (hope I got the initials right), in response to the very argument you presented, he says, "As Clement's quotations are often very loose, we need not go beyond the Canonical Gospels for the source of this passage" (Apostolic Fathers, 1.2.52).
I would appreciate if you would read my comments properly....I offered an argument with facts, you simply replied with an opinion with no facts or argument....You didn't even read my page on Clement did you?....What?...I showed it is reasonable conclusion with facts and argument. You just ignored my argument entirely - e.g. you totally ignored the fact that the passage supposedly from Matthew is found in two places EIGHT chapters apart.
Every one of these obnoxious statements that permeated your post is in some manner inaccurate. In the midst of whining like a Jr. High student and acting like a religious evangelist, you are doing the very thing you accuse me of: not reading my comments properly. The result is that you're repeatedly rude for no reason other than you either read too fast to understand what I said to you, or were too evangelistic to listen to what's being said to you, or just have no time for the effort it takes to communicate in a purely written environment that offers no facial, tonal, or non-verbal clues to what people are saying.
You were zero-for-five on your snotty remarks. You might want to try being reasonable, and you might be given a hearing by someone.
What the?
You jumped from 185 straight to 1st century without ANY argument at all. Pure wishful thinking. NT scholars do NOT agree with your faithful claims.
This complaint is valid, but if you had not been in your unreasonable state of mind, it would not have been hard to tell that my "1st" was a typo. I meant the early 2nd century, and it's obvious from the rest of my post that I don't believe the Gospels were written in the early 1st century.
In the end, despite my arguments above, it is entirely possible that Clement's quotes are not from the four Gospels we know, but they are from the Gospel to the Hebrews or Q or possibly (but very unlikely, because he mentions that these sayings are "somewhere") from an oral tradition.
In the end, the problem is just as I told you it was. You are making bold assertions about things that you can't be sure about, and in this case, you're making bold assertions about things you don't understand very well. You can't just quote some overconfident skeptic and then act just like an evangelist quoting the Scriptures. It just won't fly.
Edited by truthlover, : Changed some wording to avoid expressing any more irritation than I already am.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Kapyong, posted 11-03-2006 5:58 PM Kapyong has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 95 of 123 (361686)
11-04-2006 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Kapyong
11-03-2006 6:19 PM


Hmm. This post of yours was a lot better.
He DOES mention the names of the books -
He says they are the "memoirs of the apostles".
He also says thay are "called "Gospels"
He also calls the Gospels of Mark the "memoirs of Peter".
This is clear and present evidence that the books he quotes were not yet named for the four evangelists.
It's the "clear" part I disagree with.
The Gospel of Mark is said to be Peter's Gospel by others, too. Luke's is also said to be Paul's, because Mark was Peter's companion and Luke Paul's. Mark's was more likely to be called Peter's, because Mark was supposed to have gotten it all from Peter, whereas there's no claim Luke got it all from Paul.
Hello?
These people were the founding fathers of your religion. Later Christians name them endlessly, with even LESS "need", because they are hugely important authorities for Christians. Later writers have less "need" but mention the names repeatedly, but somehow the earliest writers (who obviously had the most "need") failed to.
We're not talking about "earliest writers," or at least I wasn't when you quoted me. You asked about Justin. Justin is a half century later than the "earliest writers." Justin's only major writing that could quote any of the NT is his First Apology. The Second Apology and the Discourse with the Greeks are small, and the Discourse with the Greeks quotes mostly their poets.
In the First Apology, he quotes the Gospels extensively. Yes, he quotes them as sayings of Christ, but he quotes the prophets as though they were sayings, too. He says, "But when you hear the utterances of the prophets spoken as it were personally..." in ch. 36. The rest of the paragraph makes it clear he's talking about the writings of the prophets, if you want to go look it up.
Meanwhile, chapters 15-17, a full 2 pages of size 10 font in my Word document, is mostly quotes from the Gospels. The way those guys quoted, it's really no surprise that someone could go through those and find places where he's way off.
Later, Justin says that these things are in the memoirs of the apostles, which are called Gospels.
Nothing about any of this seems like "proof" that Justin didn't have the four Gospels.
Oh, and as far as I can tell, Justin never called Mark's Gospel the memoirs of Peter. It's Papias who first says that Mark was Peter's interpreter, and that's just from Irenaeus quoting him. I didn't find any mention of Mark in a search through Justin's writings.
Why?
Did Justin LOSE these famous books?
Justin quoted from memory for the same reason everyone else did. It's hard to search through scrolls to find an exact reference. Scrolls were rare. Who knows if he even owned any, or if he just had access to them through the church. The scrolls had no chapters or verse references, and there was no Strong's Concordance to search in.
The evidence shows that Justin had variant Gospels, un-named.
I hope you're seeing that your evidence, when examined, is not so conclusive.
Um, we already know there were DOZENS of Gospels by this time. Didn't you know that?
While I don't believe there were dozens of any important Gospels, I did know that there were at least two or three others, including the Gospels of Thomas and the Hebrews. I wondered if YOU knew, because you are insisting that Justin and Clement had to be quoting oral tradition apart from anything written.
Yet you really think Irenaeus's naming them proves that 30 years before, Justin (who did NOT name them) knew their names, even though he did NOT ever mention them.
Why do you think that?
I told you why. Irenaeus was over 60 when he wrote Against Heresies. He had been in Polycarp's church in Smyrna in his younger years. He had visited Rome and been in rather important discussions with the bishop there. He was familiar with the church of Rome in Justin's time, and Justin lived in Rome. Irenaeus claims all the Gospels were written by AD 98, when he says John's Gospel was written. It seems very likely that there were copies of the four Gospels in Rome in AD 150, because Irenaeus was there for long discussions about that time. Surely, he wouldn't have thought the Gospels were ancient if they appeared for the first time when he was in his 40's (just 10 years after Justin wrote) and weren't know by name in his younger years in Smyrna.
Please cite your evidence for that.
This is in reference to my statement that "in Irenaeus time the references to the Gospels and their having been around a long time are universal."
Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies in AD 185. When I wrote the above statement, I had Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian in mind, both of whom wrote beginning around AD 190.
I went to look up references in Clement for you, and I forgot one of the strongest pieces of evidence that Justin knew of the same four Gospels Irenaeus mentioned, besides Irenaeus' trip to Rome to discuss the heresies of Valentinus. Tatian!
Tatian was a disciple of Justin's who became a heretic. He also is the editor of the Diatessaron, a harmony of the four Gospels.
I don't think Clement and Tertullian are at question. They both mention the Gospels regularly. I found Clement a bit tedious, so I don't remember his writings real well. I only read them once. Tertullian was interesting, and he argued about how ancient the Gospels were just like Irenaeus did.
What about Aristides who claims the Gospel had only been preached a short time in the period 139-161 ?
I never read Aristides. I think that was only recently found. It's not in the Ante-Nicene Fathers 10-volume set, nor in any other books I have. It is on the internet, though. Let me go look it up.
Ok, I found the place in chapter 16 where he says that the Christians are a new people. The Anonymous Letter to Diognetus calls the Christians a new race, too. I think that's just because they've only been around about a hundred years. That's pretty young for a group of people, especially when they're being compared to the Jews and Greeks.
If you want to read the context, I think you'll agree that's what it says.
Well, I apologize the last post was so strongly worded. It wasn't as strongly worded as the post it responded to, but this post of yours was a lot more reasonable, so mine was less strongly worded, too. I hope you're willing to look at the evidence I've presented, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Kapyong, posted 11-03-2006 6:19 PM Kapyong has not replied

  
pop 
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 123 (373883)
01-03-2007 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminJar
03-31-2006 9:29 PM


corruption in the bible
I will only show you that your bibles are corrupted
*first Matt. 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mk. 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28; 17:36; 23:17; Jn. 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Rom. 16:24; and 1 John 5:7. all these verses which were found in king james virsion and other versions (old ones) arent found now in any of the revised versions take a look BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.
*second the most trinity verse are now corrected 1 John 5:7 is a verse which say in older virsions like king james
(For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one)
in new versions like Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible ...etc the verse ends at (there are three that testify)
anyone supports me he is welcomed anyone challenging me I am ready

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminJar, posted 03-31-2006 9:29 PM AdminJar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Nighttrain, posted 01-03-2007 2:41 AM pop has replied
 Message 102 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-03-2007 9:47 AM pop has not replied
 Message 104 by Equinox, posted 01-03-2007 10:24 AM pop has not replied
 Message 106 by Equinox, posted 01-03-2007 10:38 AM pop has replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 97 of 123 (373895)
01-03-2007 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by pop
01-03-2007 1:17 AM


Re: corruption in the bible
Settle down, Nasr, and welcome. Things tend to get a tad heated here sometimes, but we are all learning. Show a good argument with plenty of FACTS, not just links, and you`ll do fine.
Btw, being from Lebanon, are you familiar with Salibi`s work?
Edited by Nighttrain, : Added a query

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by pop, posted 01-03-2007 1:17 AM pop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by pop, posted 01-03-2007 3:17 AM Nighttrain has replied

  
pop 
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 123 (373902)
01-03-2007 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Nighttrain
01-03-2007 2:41 AM


Re: corruption in the bible
hi nighti sorry if i was talking foolishly man.we need to study the bible deeper right? have you seen the verses i wrote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Nighttrain, posted 01-03-2007 2:41 AM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Nighttrain, posted 01-03-2007 3:42 AM pop has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 99 of 123 (373905)
01-03-2007 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by pop
01-03-2007 3:17 AM


Re: corruption in the bible
I`ll take your word for it, Nasr. I`m just about Bibled out. Too many versions, contradictions, scribal errors, additions, omissions--the list goes on. Now if I could get my hands on an autograph edition---

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by pop, posted 01-03-2007 3:17 AM pop has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Vacate, posted 01-03-2007 3:48 AM Nighttrain has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 100 of 123 (373908)
01-03-2007 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Nighttrain
01-03-2007 3:42 AM


Re: corruption in the bible
I looked at several in the list as I didn't believe that anyone would actually omit passages. Its true however, and since I am told often that it is infallible I am quite shocked that anyone would literaly remove passages from the bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Nighttrain, posted 01-03-2007 3:42 AM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Nighttrain, posted 01-03-2007 5:16 AM Vacate has not replied
 Message 103 by Equinox, posted 01-03-2007 10:18 AM Vacate has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 101 of 123 (373919)
01-03-2007 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Vacate
01-03-2007 3:48 AM


Re: corruption in the bible
Prepare to be shocked some more, Vacate. Study on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Vacate, posted 01-03-2007 3:48 AM Vacate has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 102 of 123 (373955)
01-03-2007 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by pop
01-03-2007 1:17 AM


Re: corruption in the old bibles
What makes you say the corruption is in the new translations?
Since the King James Bible was completed in 1611 many new manuscripts have come to light. Today's scholars have access to manuscripts much older (closer to the source) than anything the King James translators dreamed of.
If you read the translator's introductions and other supporting material included in the NRSV, RSV, NJB, REB, JPS and other versions, you will find plenty of information about why the committees make the choices they do. They explain the matter of textual support. In cases where they were forced to choose from more than one ancient reading, they tell you which sources they followed in the main text and provide the alternative in a footnote. All the verses you describe as 'omitted' are in fact shared with the reader in these translations. If the material does not appear in the earliest manuscripts it is not placed in the main text. But it does appear in footnotes, along with a brief explanation of why it was put there. You get all the information.
This is not corruption. This is scholarly integrity.
The manuscripts used for earlier translations were more 'corrupt' than anyone knew. And the reader of a King James Bible will not be told, as will the reader of a reputable modern translation, which verses have the best manuscript support and which only show up in later copies. All sources are treated the same regardless of merit. The reader is much better served by translations like the NRSV and NJB.
The King James translators did well-intentioned work. In the process of doing it they created a landmark of English literature. But their work is and remains seventeenth-century work. You wouldn't allow yourself to be operated on by a surgeon using only the tools, methods, and knowlege available to medicine in 1611. There is no reason to approach literature that way.
The body of knowledge has grown. Scholarship has moved on. Avail yourself of it. There's no reason to shortchange yourself.
___
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : more typo repair.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : never-ending typo repair.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by pop, posted 01-03-2007 1:17 AM pop has not replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 103 of 123 (373960)
01-03-2007 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Vacate
01-03-2007 3:48 AM


Re: corruption in the bible
Welcome, Vacate-
You wrote:
quote:
Its true however, and since I am told often that it is infallible I am quite shocked that anyone would literaly remove passages from the bible.
It's shocking that you've been lied to, but understand that the people who told you that the Bible was infallible are only repeating what they too were told, by people they trusted. Don't be too hard on them.
As Archer pointed out, the outright changing of the Bible is not some new practice. It's been going on for centuries, and started well before the "Bible" even existed as a collected book. The KJV preserves more errors and deliberate alterations than the modern versions, though all contain extensive changes by the early Christian community. You really need to find out how the Bible was made to understand this.
A good place to start is with a short course from a reputable scholar on the history of the Bible. It's only $20 on tape, and I've listened to it on my commute to work. You can order it here:
http://www.teach12.com...
If you want the details on dozens of examples of early changes (most of which are in the KJV in their changed form), then read the book I referenced earlier, "the Orthodox Corruption of Scripture".
Again, welcome, and have a fun day-
Equinox
Edited by AdminAsgara, : fixed long url

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Vacate, posted 01-03-2007 3:48 AM Vacate has not replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 104 of 123 (373962)
01-03-2007 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by pop
01-03-2007 1:17 AM


Re: corruption in the bible
Hi Nasr-
I'm quite familiar with all the changes to the Bible and the messy process by which we got it. You may be interested in the short course I mentioned in my previous post. It's quick and well worth the price - less than what a half a tank of gasoline costs.
Thanks for the succinct list. I've mentioned some of those, and having a nice list like that will be convenient when talking with people who have been fooled into thinking the Bible is the perfect and infallible word of God. I've also found it useful to point out that the endings of Mk, Jn, and Jn 8 were added to the Bible, as is noted in modern translations. Jn 8 may have been added as late as 1000 CE.
Have a fun day-
-Equinox

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by pop, posted 01-03-2007 1:17 AM pop has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-03-2007 10:34 AM Equinox has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 105 of 123 (373963)
01-03-2007 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Equinox
01-03-2007 10:24 AM


Re: corruption in the bible
Equinox:
Jn 8 may have been added as late as 1000 CE.
Whoa. That is very late for any text to be jumping on the old Gospel chariot.
I'd be interested in hearing more from you about this. Care to share?
Until then, I'll just check the notes in my NRSV...
___

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Equinox, posted 01-03-2007 10:24 AM Equinox has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024