TheMatrixHasU71 Posted July 13, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,573 Content Per Day: 0.51 Reputation: 723 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted July 13, 2016 7 hours ago, Jayne said: Actually, we do not have fragments of the originals. The originals - have been 100% and completely gone for centuries. The literal piece of parchment that Paul wrote on and that Moses wrote on are no more and have been no more. We don't even have the first copies or the first copies of copies. That's where textual criticism - meticulous study and research to determine as best we can what the originals actually said - comes in. That is actually not true. I have done by reading. We DO have fragments of the originals. There is a fragment of Matthew that dates from the AD60s. And many believe there is every reason to accept this may have been from the original parchment penned by Matthew directly. There is a fragment of Mark that may date to the AD 40s. There is a fragment of John, the Rylands papyrus which although it is not the original, nearly all scholars date it to early 2nd century possibly as old as AD 100. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayne Posted July 13, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 107 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 3,820 Content Per Day: 1.30 Reputation: 4,806 Days Won: 2 Joined: 03/31/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted July 13, 2016 (edited) 36 minutes ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said: That is actually not true. I have done by reading. We DO have fragments of the originals. There is a fragment of Matthew that dates from the AD60s. And many believe there is every reason to accept this may have been from the original parchment penned by Matthew directly. There is a fragment of Mark that may date to the AD 40s. There is a fragment of John, the Rylands papyrus which although it is not the original, nearly all scholars date it to early 2nd century possibly as old as AD 100. Brother, I didn't say we don't have ancient copy fragments. I said we don't have the originals or probably even the first copies. Do you have a link to show where it has been concretely proven that the Matthew/Mark fragments are definitively the autographs? Edited July 13, 2016 by Jayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwikphilly Posted July 13, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 96 Topic Count: 307 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 18,136 Content Per Day: 4.63 Reputation: 27,817 Days Won: 327 Joined: 08/03/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted July 13, 2016 Blessings.... This Thread was posted well over a month ago,I asked for more details from the OP June 28th,never got a reply........I guess that is the answer to my questions-lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMatrixHasU71 Posted July 13, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,573 Content Per Day: 0.51 Reputation: 723 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted July 13, 2016 5 hours ago, Jayne said: Brother, I didn't say we don't have ancient copy fragments. I said we don't have the originals or probably even the first copies. Do you have a link to show where it has been concretely proven that the Matthew/Mark fragments are definitively the autographs? Try sister, actually and I was saying, precisely, that we DO have what may be fragments of the ORIGINALS. No one said they were definitively but there is a very good chance they may be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Robert Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Regarding the OP topic: this article may shed new light on the John 8 issue- http://www.truthinmydays.com/a-call-for-serious-evangelical-apologetics-the-authenticity-of-john-753-811-as-a-case-study/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omegaman 3.0 Posted July 13, 2016 Group: Graduated to Heaven Followers: 57 Topic Count: 1,546 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 10,320 Content Per Day: 1.41 Reputation: 12,323 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/15/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1951 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Wow, that is quite the article RobertS. However, I confess that I only read 1/3 of the first page, and none of the second page. Thank you, never-the-less! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knowingtruth Posted August 6, 2016 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 14 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 625 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 226 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/15/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted August 6, 2016 On 6/2/2016 at 10:22 AM, spiderman1917 said: ...that the story of the adulterer was added http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/aprilweb-only/117-31.0.html What do I say? Whatever, only Jesus could have uttered such words of such sublime truth! Only Jesus of all the people could have delivered the Sermon on the Mount. That is why He is the Son of God, none other. Praise be to God for sending Him for our enlightenment and salvation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedOnebyGrace Posted August 9, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 4,058 Content Per Day: 14.92 Reputation: 5,191 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/30/2023 Status: Offline Share Posted August 9, 2016 On 7/13/2016 at 3:55 PM, RobertS said: Regarding the OP topic: this article may shed new light on the John 8 issue- http://www.truthinmydays.com/a-call-for-serious-evangelical-apologetics-the-authenticity-of-john-753-811-as-a-case-study/ Thank you for posting a link to that article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts