How We Got the Books of the New Testament - Bart Erhman Refuted

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Hawkins said:
If what you said is true. Why can't you just present the original ancient scrolls the church has kept?

Moreover, why do you have to side track the issue. Face this directly!

The whole point is, we have 2 independent sources about a book with contents theologically identical. Either it is a fluke, or it's intended. The good is that it's up to your faith to judge which shall be the truth.
Click to expand...

DuH, we only have the copies that we received through the apostolic churches. Don't twist what I said, we don't have the originals

You are just supporting theories that originated in the mid to late 1900s. The historic position of the churches I can document all the way back.
 
calvinsx76 said:
DuH, we only have the copies that we received through the apostolic churches. Don't twist what I said, we don't have the originals

You are just supporting theories that originated in the mid to late 1900s. The historic position of the churches I can document all the way back.
Click to expand...

Again, you are dodging my questions with more asserted accusations.

1) show us how original the copies you claim to be from the apostolic churches!

2) answer the question why a book from 2 independent sources are theologically identical
 
Hawkins said:
You miss the point. I am asking you to provide an explanation on why a book from 2 independent sources are theologically identical.
Click to expand...

Those documents have over 3 thousands differences in the gospels alone. Google Hooskir

Plus Sinanticus have 616 in Revelation. Ireneus in the second century refers to documents that had the reading 616, and he shows that the most approved scriptures, and the copies that trace through the apostolic churches have 666. An Ireneus can trace his succession through John the Apostle. I think he is much more reliable.
 
calvinsx76 said:
Those documents have over 3 thousands differences in the gospels alone. Google Hooskir

Plus Sinanticus have 616 in Revelation. Ireneus in the second century refers to documents that had the reading 616, and he shows that the most approved scriptures, and the copies that trace through the apostolic churches have 666. An Ireneus can trace his succession through John the Apostle. I think he is much more reliable.
Click to expand...

Your are trying to side tracking again. I am talking about theologically identical, not contextually identical!

Still you failed to present how original the copies you claim to be from the apostolic church.
 
Hawkins said:
Again, you are dodging my questions with more asserted accusations.

1) show us how original the copies you claim to be from the apostolic churches!
The Vulgate were used in Apostolic Churches, and we know who Jerome was, and he documents his process, we have the Peshitta which comes from the Aramaic churches, we have the texts from the greek churches, the egyptian churches


2) answer the question why a book from 2 independent sources are theologically identical
Click to expand...

Define theologically identical? A text that removes that last twelve verses of Mark, which are in the Vulgate, the Psettia, most of the greek texts, the copic texts

I see you reject all documented evidence.

Now answer me this

Who authored those documents

I accept the texts that were comely received through the apostolic churches
 
calvinsx76 said:
Define theologically identical? A text that removes that last twelve verses of Mark, which are in the Vulgate, the Psettia, most of the greek texts, the copic texts

I see you reject all documented evidence.

Now answer me this

Who authored those documents

I accept the texts that were comely received through the apostolic churches
Click to expand...


Why do you have to put accusations on each and every of your post.

Show us through you authored documents to present how original the copies of the Bible you claim to be from the apostolic church.

It remains your assertion to say that "your authored" document supports that your copies of Bible "are original".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hawkins said:
Your are trying to side tracking again. I am talking about theologically identical, not contextually identical!

Still you failed to present how original the copies you claim to be from the apostolic church.
Click to expand...

We have the versions of the Vulgate that were read in apostolic churches, we know who the author was Jerome, and we know the issues with that version. We have the Peshitta version which comes through the Aramaic churches, we have the greek texts, the copic texts...and those churches still exist today.

Now tell me who wrote sinaticus and vacticanus? What apostolic churches were they read in?
 
These are must read/watch IMO concerning this topic:

Foxes.jpg

Foxe's book of martyrs

https://archive.org/details/foxesbookofmarty00fo

Foxe's book of martyrs : a complete and authentic account of the lives, sufferings, and triumphant deaths of the primitive and Protestant martyrs in all parts of the world, with notes, comments and illustrations


Battle For The Bible - The English Bible - Wycliffe, Tyndale, Cranmer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RubxnoTeL_M

Secrets of the Dead: Battle for the Bible


2007 NR Rated NR 1hr

This PBS investigative show examines three key figures in the translation and proliferation of the English Bible: 14th-century theologian and reformer John Wycliffe, 16th-century translator William Tyndale and Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer. Their struggles to translate the tightly guarded ancient texts into everyday language had far-reaching effects that ultimately led to the Protestant Reformation.
 
calvinsx76 said:
We have the versions of the Vulgate that were read in apostolic churches, we know who the author was Jerome, and we know the issues with that version. We have the Peshitta version which comes through the Aramaic churches, we have the greek texts, the copic texts...and those churches still exist today.

Now tell me who wrote sinaticus and vacticanus? What apostolic churches were they read in?
Click to expand...

So now you admit that you lost whatever can be considered original. You have gather from the different sources to put up your copies.

Do you have the original copies you claim which is from Jerome or Peshitta?


The fact is, today we rely heavily on 2 streams of Bibles, namely the KJV and NIV. Both cannot be tracked back to confirm how original they are.

So do you mean to say that your church has a more authenticated than the KJV and NIV?
 
Hawkins said:
Why do you have to put accusations on each and every of your post.

Show us through you authored documents to present how original the copies of the Bible you claim to be from the apostolic church.

It remains your assertion to say that "your authored" document supports that your copies of Bible "are original".
Click to expand...

They are not accusations, they are historical facts. Are you trying to play the victim card.

How come Vacticanus doesn't have Revelation, but Sinancticus does with its 616 antichrist that Ireneus shows is a bad reading and are from bad texts.
 
calvinsx76 said:
They are not accusations, they are historical facts. Are you trying to play the victim card.

How come Vacticanus doesn't have Revelation, but Sinancticus does with its 616 antichrist that Ireneus shows is a bad reading and are from bad texts.
Click to expand...


These are your accusations;

I see you reject all documented evidence.

Don't twist what I said, we don't have the originals (since when I tried to twist what you said?)

You are just supporting theories that originated in the mid to late 1900s. (I didn't even heard of it)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hawkins said:
So now you admit that you lost whatever can be considered original. You have gather from the different sources to put up your copies.

Do you have the original copies you claim which is from Jerome or Peshitta?

We have copies of the vulgate that were transmitted through the apostolic churches

Now tell me what apostolic churches received Sinaaticus and Vaticanus and were read in their churches.

Sinacticus was found put away in a bookshelf...The monastary conducting their daily readings weren't using that text. I wonder way.


The fact is, today we rely heavily on 2 streams of Bibles, namely the KJV and NIV. Both cannot be tracked back to confirm how original they are.

So do you mean to say that your church has a more authenticated than the KJV and NIV?
Click to expand...

The NIV is based on the two independant texts you site. Obviously you need to get reacquainted with your history.

The King James is based on the received greek and western apostolic churches.
 
calvinsx76 said:
The NIV is based on the two independant texts you site. Obviously you need to get reacquainted with your history.

The King James is based on the received greek and western apostolic churches.
Click to expand...

You are dodging my question again.

I am asking if NIV and KJV are not what you claim to be from the apostolic church, then which Bible it is?

I am not asking what NIV and KJV are.
 
What I'm saying about those two witnesses is I wouldn't based an edition on them since we don't know their origins, and who wrote them. These could have been gnostics texts.

Tertullian and Ireneus in the second century provide the criterion used by the apostolic churches.

Those text do represent a form of the new testament, but why would I use those, but when there are thousands of copies received through apostolic churches?
 
Hawkins said:
You are dodging my question again.

I am asking if NIV and KJV are not what you claim to be from the apostolic church, then which Bible it is?

I am not asking what NIV and KJV are.
Click to expand...

We know the documents used by the 47 people who worked on the KJV edition, which included the greek church versions and the western versions to include the vulgate. We also know the texts that the NIV uses which are Sinacticus and Vacticanus
 
calvinsx76 said:
What I'm saying about those two witnesses is I wouldn't based an edition on them since we don't know their origins, and who wrote them. These could have been gnostics texts.

Tertullian and Ireneus in the second century provide the criterion used by the apostolic churches.

Those text do represent a form of the new testament, but why would I use those, but when there are thousands of copies received through apostolic churches?
Click to expand...


The answer is rather simple. Because no one can be more authenticated than the Church in identifying which Bible is authenticated.

Today, the Roman Catholic Church can represent up to 1.2 billion Christians, while the Protestants can represent up to 0.9 billion Christians. What make you think that your copies can be more authenticated, especially in terms of the message of Salvation?

God won't risk the lives of more than 2 billion Christians by giving them an unauthenticated copy of His message of Salvation, but rather give you the more authenticated ones. Make sense?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What does it matter that they are theologically identical, and are these documents theologically identical? What makes them theologically identical? What's your definition of that.
 
Hawkins said:
The answer is rather simple. Because no one can be more authenticated than the Church in identifying which Bible is authenticated.

Today, the Roman Catholic Church can represent up to 1.2 billion Christians, while the Protestants can represent up to 0.9 billion Christians. What make you think that your copies can be more authenticated, especially in terms of the message of Salvation?

God won't risk the lives of more than 2 billion Christians by giving them an unauthenticated copy of His message of Salvation, but rather give you the more authenticated ones. Make sense?
Click to expand...

All I am saying is there are Good copies and they are bad copies. This is well document in the second century.
 
calvinsx76 said:
What does it matter that they are theologically identical, and are these documents theologically identical? What makes them theologically identical? What's your definition of that.
Click to expand...

They are theologically identical such that we humans can tell that the same we read today remains the same ancient humans read.

If a God exists and He has an message concerning humans' Salvation, it's important for this God to convey the same message to today's humans, and the same message to ancient humans and the humans to come.

If the message from such a God is inconsistent, how can we figure out the standard concerning our salvation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back