Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679

    Is the Bible Reliable

    Introduction
    How do we know that the Bible we have today is even close to the original? Haven't copiers down through the centuries inserted and deleted and embellished the documents so that the original message of the Bible has been obscured? These questions are frequently asked to discredit the sources of information from which the Christian faith has come to us.

    Three Errors To Avoid
    Do not assume inspiration or infallibility of the documents, with the intent of attempting to prove the inspiration or infallibility of the documents. Do not say the bible is inspired or infallible simply because it claims to be. This is circular reasoning.
    When considering the original documents, forget about the present form of your Bible and regard them as the collection of ancient source documents that they are.
    Do not start with modern "authorities" and then move to the documents to see if the authorities were right. Begin with the documents themselves.
    Procedure for Testing a Document's Validity
    In his book, Introduction in Research in English Literary History, C. Sanders sets forth three tests of reliability employed in general historiography and literary criticism.{1} These tests are:

    Bibliographical (i.e., the textual tradition from the original document to the copies and manuscripts of that document we possess today)
    Internal evidence (what the document claims for itself)
    External evidence (how the document squares or aligns itself with facts, dates, persons from its own contemporary world).
    It might be noteworthy to mention that Sanders is a professor of military history, not a theologian. He uses these three tests of reliability in his own study of historical military events.

    We will look now at the bibliographical, or textual evidence for the Bible's reliability.


    The Old Testament
    For both Old and New Testaments, the crucial question is: "Not having any original copies or scraps of the Bible, can we reconstruct them well enough from the oldest manuscript evidence we do have so they give us a true, undistorted view of actual people, places and events?"

    The Scribe
    The scribe was considered a professional person in antiquity. No printing presses existed, so people were trained to copy documents. The task was usually undertaken by a devout Jew. The Scribes believed they were dealing with the very Word of God and were therefore extremely careful in copying. They did not just hastily write things down. The earliest complete copy of the Hebrew Old Testament dates from c. 900 A.D.

    The Massoretic Text
    During the early part of the tenth century (916 A.D.), there was a group of Jews called the Massoretes. These Jews were meticulous in their copying. The texts they had were all in capital letters, and there was no punctuation or paragraphs. The Massoretes would copy Isaiah, for example, and when they were through, they would total up the number of letters. Then they would find the middle letter of the book. If it was not the same, they made a new copy. All of the present copies of the Hebrew text which come from this period are in remarkable agreement. Comparisons of the Massoretic text with earlier Latin and Greek versions have also revealed careful copying and little deviation during the thousand years from 100 B.C. to 900 A.D. But until this century, there was scant material written in Hebrew from antiquity which could be compared to the Masoretic texts of the tenth century A.D.

    The Dead Sea Scrolls
    In 1947, a young Bedouin goat herdsman found some strange clay jars in caves near the valley of the Dead Sea. Inside the jars were some leather scrolls. The discovery of these "Dead Sea Scrolls" at Qumran has been hailed as the outstanding archeological discovery of the twentieth century. The scrolls have revealed that a commune of monastic farmers flourished in the valley from 150 B.C. to 70 A.D. It is believed that when they saw the Romans invade the land they put their cherished leather scrolls in the jars and hid them in the caves on the cliffs northwest of the Dead Sea.
    The Dead Sea Scrolls include a complete copy of the Book of Isaiah, a fragmented copy of Isaiah, containing much of Isaiah 38-6, and fragments of almost every book in the Old Testament. The majority of the fragments are from Isaiah and the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). The books of Samuel, in a tattered copy, were also found and also two complete chapters of the book of Habakkuk. In addition, there were a number of nonbiblical scrolls related to the commune found.

    These materials are dated around 100 B.C. The significance of the find, and particularly the copy of Isaiah, was recognized by Merrill F. Unger when he said, "This complete document of Isaiah quite understandably created a sensation since it was the first major Biblical manuscript of great antiquity ever to be recovered. Interest in it was especially keen since it antedates by more than a thousand years the oldest Hebrew texts preserved in the Massoretic tradition."{2}

    The supreme value of these Qumran documents lies in the ability of biblical scholars to compare them with the Massoretic Hebrew texts of the tenth century A.D. If, upon examination, there were little or no textual changes in those Massoretic texts where comparisons were possible, an assumption could then be made that the Massoretic Scribes had probably been just as faithful in their copying of the other biblical texts which could not be compared with the Qumran material.

    What was learned? A comparison of the Qumran manuscript of Isaiah with the Massoretic text revealed them to be extremely close in accuracy to each other: "A comparison of Isaiah 53 shows that only 17 letters differ from the Massoretic text. Ten of these are mere differences in spelling (like our "honor" and the English "honour") and produce no change in the meaning at all. Four more are very minor differences, such as the presence of a conjunction (and) which are stylistic rather than substantive. The other three letters are the Hebrew word for "light." This word was added to the text by someone after "they shall see" in verse 11. Out of 166 words in this chapter, only this one word is really in question, and it does not at all change the meaning of the passage. We are told by biblical scholars that this is typical of the whole manuscript of Isaiah."{3}


    The Septuagint
    The Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, also confirms the accuracy of the copyists who ultimately gave us the Massoretic text. The Septuagint is often referred to as the LXX because it was reputedly done by seventy Jewish scholars in Alexandria around 200 B.C. The LXX appears to be a rather literal translation from the Hebrew, and the manuscripts we have are pretty good copies of the original translation.

    Conclusion
    In his book, Can I Trust My Bible, R. Laird Harris concluded, "We can now be sure that copyists worked with great care and accuracy on the Old Testament, even back to 225 B.C. . . . indeed, it would be rash skepticism that would now deny that we have our Old Testament in a form very close to that used by Ezra when he taught the word of the Lord to those who had returned from the Babylonian captivity."{4}

    The New Testament
    The Greek Manuscript Evidence
    There are more than 4,000 different ancient Greek manuscripts containing all or portions of the New Testament that have survived to our time. These are written on different materials.
    Papyrus and Parchment

    During the early Christian era, the writing material most commonly used was papyrus. This highly durable reed from the Nile Valley was glued together much like plywood and then allowed to dry in the sun. In the twentieth century many remains of documents (both biblical and non-biblical) on papyrus have been discovered, especially in the dry, arid lands of North Africa and the Middle East.

    Another material used was parchment. This was made from the skin of sheep or goats, and was in wide use until the late Middle Ages when paper began to replace it. It was scarce and more expensive; hence, it was used almost exclusively for important documents.

    Examples

    1. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Siniaticus

    These are two excellent parchment copies of the entire New Testament which date from the 4th century (325-450 A.D.).{5}

    2. Older Papyrii


    Earlier still, fragments and papyrus copies of portions of the New Testament date from 100 to 200 years (180-225 A.D.) before Vaticanus and Sinaticus. The outstanding ones are the Chester Beatty Papyrus (P45, P46, P47) and the Bodmer Papyrus II, XIV, XV (P46, P75).

    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.{6}

    3. Oldest Fragment

    Perhaps the earliest piece of Scripture surviving is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John 18:31-33 and 37. It is called the Rylands Papyrus (P52) and dates from 130 A.D., having been found in Egypt. The Rylands Papyrus has forced the critics to place the fourth gospel back into the first century, abandoning their earlier assertion that it could not have been written then by the Apostle John.{7}

    4. This manuscript evidence creates a bridge of extant papyrus and parchment fragments and copies of the New Testament stretching back to almost the end of the first century.


    Versions (Translations)
    In addition to the actual Greek manuscripts, there are more than 1,000 copies and fragments of the New Testament in Syria, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic, as well as 8,000 copies of the Latin Vulgate, some of which date back almost to Jerome's original translation in 384 400 A.D.

    Church Fathers
    A further witness to the New Testament text is sourced in the thousands of quotations found throughout the writings of the Church Fathers (the early Christian clergy [100-450 A.D.] who followed the Apostles and gave leadership to the fledgling church, beginning with Clement of Rome (96 A.D.).
    It has been observed that if all of the New Testament manuscripts and Versions mentioned above were to disappear overnight, it would still be possible to reconstruct the entire New Testament with quotes from the Church Fathers, with the exception of fifteen to twenty verses!


    A Comparison
    The evidence for the early existence of the New Testament writings is clear. The wealth of materials for the New Testament becomes even more significant when we compare it with other ancient documents which have been accepted without question.

    Author and Work Author's Lifespan Date of Events Date of Writing* Earliest Extant MS** Lapse: Event to Writing Lapse: Event to MS
    Matthew,
    Gospel ca. 0-70? 4 BC - AD 30 50 - 65/75 ca. 200 <50 years <200 years
    Mark,
    Gospel ca. 15-90? 27 - 30 65/70 ca. 225 <50 years <200 years
    Luke,
    Gospel ca. 10-80? 5 BC - AD 30 60/75 ca. 200 <50 years <200 years
    John,
    Gospel ca. 10-100 27-30 90-110 ca. 130 <80 years <100 years
    Paul,
    Letters ca. 0-65 30 50-65 ca. 200 20-30 years <200 years
    Josephus,
    War ca. 37-100 200 BC - AD 70 ca. 80 ca. 950 10-300 years 900-1200 years
    Josephus,
    Antiquities ca. 37-100 200 BC - AD 65 ca. 95 ca. 1050 30-300 years 1000-1300 years
    Tacitus,
    Annals ca. 56-120 AD 14-68 100-120 ca. 850 30-100 years 800-850 years
    Seutonius,
    Lives ca. 69-130 50 BC - AD 95 ca. 120 ca. 850 25-170 years 750-900 years
    Pliny,
    Letters ca. 60-115 97-112 110-112 ca. 850 0-3 years 725-750 years
    Plutarch,
    Lives ca. 50-120 500 BC - AD 70 ca. 100 ca. 950 30-600 years 850-1500 years
    Herodotus,
    History ca. 485-425 BC 546-478 BC 430-425 BC ca. 900 50-125 years 1400-1450 years
    Thucydides,
    History ca. 460-400 BC 431-411 BC 410-400 BC ca. 900 0-30 years 1300-1350 years
    Xenophon,
    Anabasis ca. 430-355 BC 401-399 BC 385-375 BC ca. 1350 15-25 years 1750 years
    Polybius,
    History ca. 200-120 BC 220-168 BC ca. 150 BC ca. 950 20-70 years 1100-1150 years

    *Where a slash occurs, the first date is conservative, and the second is liberal.
    **New Testament manuscripts are fragmentary. Earliest complete manuscript is from ca. 350; lapse of event to complete manuscript is about 325 years.


    Conclusion
    In his book, The Bible and Archaeology, Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, stated about the New Testament, "The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."{8}
    To be skeptical of the 27 documents in the New Testament, and to say they are unreliable is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the New Testament.

    B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, the creators of The New Testament in Original Greek, also commented: "If comparative trivialities such as changes of order, the insertion or omission of the article with proper names, and the like are set aside, the works in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly mount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament."{9} In other words, the small changes and variations in manuscripts change no major doctrine: they do not affect Christianity in the least. The message is the same with or without the variations. We have the Word of God.


    The Anvil? God's Word.
    Last eve I passed beside a blacksmith's door
    And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime:
    Then looking in, I saw upon the floor
    Old hammers, worn with beating years of time.


    "How many anvils have you had," said I,
    "To wear and batter all these hammers so?"
    "Just one," said he, and then, with twinkling eye,
    "The anvil wears the hammers out, you know."


    And so, thought I, the anvil of God's word,
    For ages skeptic blows have beat upon;
    Yet though the noise of falling blows was heard,
    The anvil is unharmed . . . the hammer's gone.
    Author unknown

  2. #2
    Sapper's Avatar
    Sapper is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    31
    Of course, the earliest books (the Pentateuch) were handed down a oral tradition for a long time before being written. So maybe a few embellishments occurred in the telling. The best argument I use against evangelical athiests who slam Genesis? "Do you really think ancient Israelites would have understood if God showed up and explained atomic theory to them?"

    Read Leviticus, for a people that had no concept of microbiology, it's dead on for dealing with sanitation. And crop rotation. And incest. Go figure. I firmly believe it condemns homosexuality only because of the disease vector it presented in the days before condoms. It condemns bestiality in the same way. It doesn't say anything about a woman being with another woman, just man-on-man. Of course, that may be because of the male-centric culture of the time, but I prefer to take a logical approach. Guess we'll find out all the answers once we're worm fodder.

  3. #3
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Sapper
    Of course, the earliest books (the Pentateuch) were handed down a oral tradition for a long time before being written. So maybe a few embellishments occurred in the telling. The best argument I use against evangelical athiests who slam Genesis? "Do you really think ancient Israelites would have understood if God showed up and explained atomic theory to them?"

    Read Leviticus, for a people that had no concept of microbiology, it's dead on for dealing with sanitation. And crop rotation. And incest. Go figure. I firmly believe it condemns homosexuality only because of the disease vector it presented in the days before condoms. It condemns bestiality in the same way. It doesn't say anything about a woman being with another woman, just man-on-man. Of course, that may be because of the male-centric culture of the time, but I prefer to take a logical approach. Guess we'll find out all the answers once we're worm fodder.

    Yeah it does, in the new testamemt. (Woman /Woman)

  4. #4
    Sapper's Avatar
    Sapper is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by books555
    Yeah it does, in the new testamemt. (Woman /Woman)
    I stand corrected. Where? (Not being smartass, I want to look it up without paging through 80 million epistles.)

  5. #5
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Sapper
    Read Leviticus, for a people that had no concept of microbiology, it's dead on for dealing with sanitation.

    Leviticus 14:32-57 has some strange ideas on how to deal with leprosy.
    The Bible teaches that leprosy can be spread by gunk growing on your home's walls, and be eradicated with a mixture of bird's blood, cedar wood, scarlet, and hyssop.

    From reading this passage, it looks more like it's talking about mold and mildew than leprosy (more info on leprosy at http://www.emedicine.com/derm/topic223.htm ) and at any rate, neither leprosy nor mold/mildew is going to be affected by bird's blood. Won't be affected by a priest's rituals, either.

    So much for your allegation that the Bible is "dead on for dealing with sanitation."




    Leviticus Chapter 14: 32-57 . . .
    32: This is the law of him in whom is the plague of leprosy, whose hand is not able to get that which pertaineth to his cleansing.
    33: And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,
    34: When ye be come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession;
    35: And he that owneth the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, It seemeth to me there is as it were a plague in the house:
    36: Then the priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest go into it to see the plague, that all that is in the house be not made unclean: and afterward the priest shall go in to see the house:
    37: And he shall look on the plague, and, behold, if the plague be in the walls of the house with hollow strakes, greenish or reddish, which in sight are lower than the wall;
    38: Then the priest shall go out of the house to the door of the house, and shut up the house seven days:
    39: And the priest shall come again the seventh day, and shall look: and, behold, if the plague be spread in the walls of the house;
    40: Then the priest shall command that they take away the stones in which the plague is, and they shall cast them into an unclean place without the city:
    41: And he shall cause the house to be scraped within round about, and they shall pour out the dust that they scrape off without the city into an unclean place:
    42: And they shall take other stones, and put them in the place of those stones; and he shall take other morter, and shall plaister the house.
    43: And if the plague come again, and break out in the house, after that he hath taken away the stones, and after he hath scraped the house, and after it is plaistered;
    44: Then the priest shall come and look, and, behold, if the plague be spread in the house, it is a fretting leprosy in the house: it is unclean.
    45: And he shall break down the house, the stones of it, and the timber thereof, and all the morter of the house; and he shall carry them forth out of the city into an unclean place.
    46: Moreover he that goeth into the house all the while that it is shut up shall be unclean until the even.
    47: And he that lieth in the house shall wash his clothes; and he that eateth in the house shall wash his clothes.
    48: And if the priest shall come in, and look upon it, and, behold, the plague hath not spread in the house, after the house was plaistered: then the priest shall pronounce the house clean, because the plague is healed.
    49: And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:
    50: And he shall kill the one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water:
    51: And he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times:
    52: And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the running water, and with the living bird, and with the cedar wood, and with the hyssop, and with the scarlet:
    53: But he shall let go the living bird out of the city into the open fields, and make an atonement for the house: and it shall be clean.
    54: This is the law for all manner of plague of leprosy, and scall,
    55: And for the leprosy of a garment, and of a house,
    56: And for a rising, and for a scab, and for a bright spot:
    57: To teach when it is unclean, and when it is clean: this is the law of leprosy.

  6. #6
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    Leviticus 14:32-57 has some strange ideas on how to deal with leprosy.
    The Bible teaches that leprosy can be spread by gunk growing on your home's walls, and be eradicated with a mixture of bird's blood, cedar wood, scarlet, and hyssop.

    From reading this passage, it looks more like it's talking about mold and mildew than leprosy (more info on leprosy at http://www.emedicine.com/derm/topic223.htm ) and at any rate, neither leprosy nor mold/mildew is going to be affected by bird's blood. Won't be affected by a priest's rituals, either.

    So much for your allegation that the Bible is "dead on for dealing with sanitation."




    Leviticus Chapter 14: 32-57 . . .
    32: This is the law of him in whom is the plague of leprosy, whose hand is not able to get that which pertaineth to his cleansing.
    33: And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,
    34: When ye be come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession;
    35: And he that owneth the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, It seemeth to me there is as it were a plague in the house:
    36: Then the priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest go into it to see the plague, that all that is in the house be not made unclean: and afterward the priest shall go in to see the house:
    37: And he shall look on the plague, and, behold, if the plague be in the walls of the house with hollow strakes, greenish or reddish, which in sight are lower than the wall;
    38: Then the priest shall go out of the house to the door of the house, and shut up the house seven days:
    39: And the priest shall come again the seventh day, and shall look: and, behold, if the plague be spread in the walls of the house;
    40: Then the priest shall command that they take away the stones in which the plague is, and they shall cast them into an unclean place without the city:
    41: And he shall cause the house to be scraped within round about, and they shall pour out the dust that they scrape off without the city into an unclean place:
    42: And they shall take other stones, and put them in the place of those stones; and he shall take other morter, and shall plaister the house.
    43: And if the plague come again, and break out in the house, after that he hath taken away the stones, and after he hath scraped the house, and after it is plaistered;
    44: Then the priest shall come and look, and, behold, if the plague be spread in the house, it is a fretting leprosy in the house: it is unclean.
    45: And he shall break down the house, the stones of it, and the timber thereof, and all the morter of the house; and he shall carry them forth out of the city into an unclean place.
    46: Moreover he that goeth into the house all the while that it is shut up shall be unclean until the even.
    47: And he that lieth in the house shall wash his clothes; and he that eateth in the house shall wash his clothes.
    48: And if the priest shall come in, and look upon it, and, behold, the plague hath not spread in the house, after the house was plaistered: then the priest shall pronounce the house clean, because the plague is healed.
    49: And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:
    50: And he shall kill the one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water:
    51: And he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times:
    52: And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the running water, and with the living bird, and with the cedar wood, and with the hyssop, and with the scarlet:
    53: But he shall let go the living bird out of the city into the open fields, and make an atonement for the house: and it shall be clean.
    54: This is the law for all manner of plague of leprosy, and scall,
    55: And for the leprosy of a garment, and of a house,
    56: And for a rising, and for a scab, and for a bright spot:
    57: To teach when it is unclean, and when it is clean: this is the law of leprosy.

    You are absolutely correct tock! This is talking about mold and mildew. The thing is, people see things that look out of place and instead of actually looking into it, they jump on it as evidence to disprove. In fact my bible says:

    34: When you enter the land of Canaan, which I am giving you as your possiession, and I put a spreading mildew in a house in that land,..."

    Leprocy in that time isnt the leprocy we know of. Back then, ANY SKIN DISEASE was called leprocy. What kind of "skin disease" (ie: leprocy) could a house have??? mildew...you are exactly right!

    Chapters 36-48 talk all about closing the house, checking again for mildew...if its still there, tear out the stones, etc and throw them away where it is unclean. If it comes back after the stones have ben replaced and platetered, the house must be torn down. etc etc. THEN after it is certain the mildew is gone and wont come back, the priest will purify the house by a ritual. 2 birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hysop. Kill one of the birds over fresh water in a clay pot, take the cedar wood and hyssop scarlet yarn and live bird, dim them into the blood of the dead bird and the fresh water and sprinkle the house seven times. etc etc... The OT has rituals of purification and worship. It never said this would clean the mildew...it said after the mildew is gone, this would purify the house in God's eyes. The first part of leviticus chapter 14 talks about people. The 2nd half is about the house with mildew.

  7. #7
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Nevertheless, rituals and other BS prescribed by the Old Testament are useless for treating mold and mildew. All it offers are antiquated myths and superstition for treating common everyday problems.

    Again, it proves that the Bible provides no worthwhile answers to modern problems.

    -Tock

  8. #8
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by max2extreme
    Leprocy in that time isnt the leprocy we know of. Back then, ANY SKIN DISEASE was called leprocy. What kind of "skin disease" (ie: leprocy) could a house have??? mildew...you are exactly right!
    Actually, that sounds like the sort of rationalization Fundamentalists poo-poo when they hear, "Homosexuality in that time isn't the homosexuality we know of. Back then, the ban against homosexuality applied to temple prostitutes, which, outside of Jimmy Swaggart ministries, we don't have today."

    Poo-poo that, if you will.

    -Tock

  9. #9
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    dude, do some research. i cant help it if other people have said stuff like that just to prove a point, but have you ever known me to do that?? Im telling you, check it out yourself, anyone that had any skin disease was said to have leprocy and were set apart from the healthy. Chicken pox back then would have been called leprocy, but we now know the difference in the 2 and we have a distinct disease called leprocy. They didnt back then.

    Tock, you must be really excited or something. why arent you reading posts thoroughly. As i said before, the rituals are not to clean the mold. it goes on and on about what to do about the mold to clean it, quarantine it, throw out the rock and put new rock in, etc....only after the mold has been gone for good, they do a ritual of 'purification' if you will. This is not saying that the ritual will keep it clean. why dont you read those 2 pages of the verse you posted. im sure you'll drop the subject afterward.

  10. #10
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by books555
    1. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Siniaticus

    These are two excellent parchment copies of the entire New Testament which date from the 4th century (325-450 A.D.).{5}
    Check out that Codex . . . it ain't quite the same as other versions. Later versions have extra verses in strategeic places . . .
    -Tock

  11. #11
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    I have only skimmed to this thread but I read it more carefull a couple of days ago.

    All it does is indicate the bibel hasnt been changed in all those years, but it realy does nothing to prove its historical accuracy.

    If the fiction written by stephen king doesnt get changed in 2000 years its still just fiction or am I missing something?

  12. #12
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Your right, that is whole nother discussion. I will say this, written accuracy combined with archeological finds, show the bible to be reliable.

  13. #13
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by books555
    Your right, that is whole nother discussion. I will say this, written accuracy combined with archeological finds, show the bible to be reliable.
    Find me archeological evidence to support the events the Bible describes in the book of Exodus, that over half the population of Egypt left the country, and the army was decimated.

    -Tock

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •