Quote:
Originally posted by sultan:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
You made an assertion that the Bible was rewritten in 397. This is a preposterous allegation that ignores historical fact. 24,000 manuscripts of the New testament alone, dating to a mere 50 years after the events of the New testament are in societies possession. We have the Dead sea scrolls which further reinforce the validity of the works as UNCHANGED during the ages.
|
pikachu, dont take yorick's comments too seriously. he's just repeating an erroneous conclusion he made in another thread. the evidence he provided to support it does not support the "facts" he lists above.
- the 24,000 manuscripts are not complete manuscripts but rather the gross majority are fragments. regardless, the repetition of material is only proof of copying, not validity. compare this to having disparate sources confirming events.
- the fact that the works are unchanged only confirms that there was a single source that was copied, propogating contents rather than confirming validity, as described in the first point above
- the 50 years date is a best case referring to only a scarce handful of those manuscripts - the majority date from hundreds of years after. so even the earliest source material for the copying was distantly removed from events they purport to represent
[/QUOTE]I did not say 24,000 complete manuscripts, I said 24,000 manuscripts, which is correct.
In any case, the assertion that the bible was rewritten in 397 AD is ludicrous and nonfactual. Additionally, the first five books of the old testament match the Jewish Torah. are we suggesting the Catholic Council managed to replace the Jewish Torah every scattered Jewish community possessed?
I think not.