Missing Gospels?

[Kenny]

One wonders how you explain the fact that there are books quoted by the Bible that are not in the Bible?
Jasher for instance:

Joshua 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.


2 Samuel 1:18

(Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.)​

I'm not sure why that is so much an issue. Did you ever research It?

 

[Kenny]

All Bibles are full of holes

There are no original bibles, the oldest surviving manuscript is the Codex Sinaiticus, believed to be written in 4th century. It omits much that is "gospel" in newer versions, including the resurrection. Which incidentally this new find also omits.

I would have to disagree. The reproduction methods are too methodical and the evidence shows that your position is... well.... full of holes.

 

[ChristineM]

I would have to disagree. The reproduction methods are too methodical and the evidence shows that your position is... well.... full of holes.

Actually my evidence of over 200 English language, all slightly different tends to blow a hole in claimed reproduction methods. And that's since printing prior to that it was all hand written, copied, often in poor lighting.

Also the missing gospels also have much evidence to validate my claim, the Gospel of Bartholomew or the gnostic Gospels for example

But you claiming evidence, please provide it

 

[Augustus]

1,500-Year-Old Bible Found In Turkey States That Jesus Not The Son of God And Was Not Crucified At All

So in Turkey they found a secret 'Bible' that confirms the Islamic version of events perfectly?

Turkey has numerous very dubious 'relics' that relate to Islamic history that they never let any independent experts have a look at. Funny that.

P.s. in the real world, fact and truth are not bias

Might want to remember that before becoming highly credulous towards anything that conforms to your anti-religious preconceptions.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It omits much that is "gospel" in newer versions, including the resurrection.

Nonsense -- it does not "omit the resurrection." It omits gMk 16:9-29, but preserves the end of gMt.

 

[ChristineM]

Nonsense -- it does not "omit the resurrection." It omits gMk 16:9-29, but preserves the end of gMt.

Who said anything about god magic?, i said the babble omits gospels.

 

[Kenny]

Actually my evidence of over 200 English language, all slightly different tends to blow a hole in claimed reproduction methods. And that's since printing prior to that it was all hand written, copied, often in poor lighting.

Also the missing gospels also have much evidence to validate my claim, the Gospel of Bartholomew or the gnostic Gospels for example

But you claiming evidence, please provide it

Not really, unless you want it to be so.

The reproduction was Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Test. Greek was translated into multiple languages (which include English). Thus your 200 English language position is quite mute since it isn't the original (not to mention that the English version basically says the same thing.

The advantage of multiple languages is that it is easier to understand what the original meant and what was written. So, if the original language said the color was green and in Arabic it says grass green and the French version says it was summer-tree-leaf green the following could happen:

1) One could say "YOU SEE, BECAUSE THE FRENCH AND THE ARABIC DOESN'T JUST SAY GREEN, THE ORIGINAL IS WRONG!" (Even though they aren't the original language and culture may have dictated grass green or tree-leaf green for better understanding. The real problem would be if one said green and the other said red)

2) The fact that it is in dozen of languages and that basically says the same thing reinforces that the original is good

3) The fact that some fragments covering the same verses and separated by hundreds of years reinforces the veracity of the scripture.

Certainly you have every right to decide that the gnostics letters are correct as the issue was certainly dealt with in the first generation of the Christian faith. Others, equally, have the right to say the gnostic letters are deviant from the original intent of Jesus Christ and the Apostles.

Yes, if you believe in the Gnostics then those letter will support your position. If we believe in the Gospels and the writing by Paul and the General Epistles, then we would look at Gnostic writings as Apocryphal in nature.

 

[ChristineM]

Not really, unless you want it to be so.

The reproduction was Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Test. Greek was translated into multiple languages (which include English). Thus your 200 English language position is quite mute since it isn't the original (not to mention that the English version basically says the same thing.

The advantage of multiple languages is that it is easier to understand what the original meant and what was written. So, if the original language said the color was green and in Arabic it says grass green and the French version says it was summer-tree-leaf green the following could happen:

1) One could say "YOU SEE, BECAUSE THE FRENCH AND THE ARABIC DOESN'T JUST SAY GREEN, THE ORIGINAL IS WRONG!" (Even though they aren't the original language and culture may have dictated grass green or tree-leaf green for better understanding. The real problem would be if one said green and the other said red)

2) The fact that it is in dozen of languages and that basically says the same thing reinforces that the original is good

3) The fact that some fragments covering the same verses and separated by hundreds of years reinforces the veracity of the scripture.

Certainly you have every right to decide that the gnostics letters are correct as the issue was certainly dealt with in the first generation of the Christian faith. Others, equally, have the right to say the gnostic letters are deviant from the original intent of Jesus Christ and the Apostles.

Yes, if you believe in the Gnostics then those letter will support your position. If we believe in the Gospels and the writing by Paul and the General Epistles, then we would look at Gnostic writings as Apocryphal in nature.

Not point of wanting? My facts are sound, its more a point of not wanting.

The 200+ English language bibles are current and have been published since the 1600s and precisely my point, they ar nit original.

The OT is not in question, direct comparisons with Hebrew scriptures show the differences between the two.

You are free to read and interpret any NT in any language, there is at least 25, possibly more gosples that have been omitted from the bible and all the apologetics you can muster will make non difference to that.

Btw, I'm atheist, i have no axe to grind here, i am simply quoting evidential fact.

 

[Kenny]

Not point of wanting? My facts are sound, its more a point of not wanting.

The 200+ English language bibles are current and have been published since the 1600s and precisely my point, they ar nit original.

The OT is not in question, direct comparisons with Hebrew scriptures show the differences between the two.

You are free to read and interpret any NT in any language, there is at least 25, possibly more gosples that have been omitted from the bible and all the apologetics you can muster will make non difference to that.

Btw, I'm atheist, i have no axe to grind here, i am simply quoting evidential fact.

I really fail to see your point.

I have never claimed that the English language Bibles are original... for that matter, I don't know if ANYONE has claimed them to be original in nature. Is there a site that claims that the original was written in the 17th century English?

Certainly your statement that you don't have a axe to grind because you are an atheist does't hold water. If anything, it accentuates the possibility that you do.

 

[ChristineM]

I really fail to see your point.

I have never claimed that the English language Bibles are original... for that matter, I don't know if ANYONE has claimed them to be original in nature. Is there a site that claims that the original was written in the 17th century English?

Certainly your statement that you don't have a axe to grind because you are an atheist does't hold water. If anything, it accentuates the possibility that you do.

Nor have i. In fact, earlier in this thread i specifically said no current bibles are original. I did however mention the 200+ English language versions which you went on to try discrediting as moot. Yet there remains at least 200 different versions of the bible in published in the English language and who knows how many in other languages.

Ahh and now you fall into ad hominem. Interesting argument style you have there very Christian.

 

[Kenny]

Nor have i. In fact, earlier in this thread i specifically said no current bibles are original. I did however mention the 200+ English language versions which you went on to try discrediting as moot. Yet there remains at least 200 different versions of the bible in published in the English language and who knows how many in other languages.

Ahh and now you fall into ad hominem. Interesting argument style you have there very Christian.

This sounds more like a strawman.

Did you expect the paper of 2000 years to act like it was printed on eternal paper? However, fragments still pop up and you might want to update your positions:

Dr. Wallace: Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered? - DTS voice

Not only this, but the first-century fragment is from Mark’s Gospel. Before the discovery of this fragment, the oldest manuscript that had Mark in it was P45, from the early third century (c. AD 200–250). This new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years....

...
But, if this Mark fragment is confirmed as from the first century, what a thrill it will be to have a manuscript that is dated within the lifetime of many of the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection!

Sounds like we are getting very close to originals... close enough to debunk your position

 

[ChristineM]

This sounds more like a strawman.

Did you expect the paper of 2000 years to act like it was printed on eternal paper? However, fragments still pop up and you might want to update your positions:

Dr. Wallace: Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered? - DTS voice



Sounds like we are getting very close to originals... close enough to debunk your position

It is after all "the bible" and a couple of billion people consider it gospel truth.

You appear to be saying that is not true.

My position? I am simply quoting facts, you appear to be quoting apologist mantra.

 

[Kenny]

It is after all "the bible" and a couple of billion people consider it gospel truth.

You appear to be saying that is not true.

My position? I am simply quoting facts, you appear to be quoting apologist mantra.

You have yet to really give facts that change anything. And you certainly aren't quoting me correctly.

What axe did you say you weren't grinding?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., the oldest surviving manuscript is the Codex Sinaiticus, believed to be written in 4th century. It omits much that is "gospel" in newer versions, including the resurrection.

Nonsense -- it does not "omit the resurrection." It omits gMk 16:9-29, but preserves the end of gMt.

Who said anything about god magic?, i said the babble omits gospels.

 

[ChristineM]

This sounds more like a strawman.

Did you expect the paper of 2000 years to act like it was printed on eternal paper? However, fragments still pop up and you might want to update your positions:

Dr. Wallace: Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered? - DTS voice



Sounds like we are getting very close to originals... close enough to debunk your position

Just Read your link. Seems to consist of probables and small percentages.

Considering the nt was not compiled/canonized until 300+ years after jcs death. Seems odd to claim first and second century (probably) documents were parts of the nt when it didn't exist. They were used to compile the nt, several other gospels.

There are gnostic Gospel as old.

 

[ChristineM]

So you don't actually have anything to say to validate your post. Thanks for being so honest

 

[ChristineM]

You have yet to really give facts that change anything. And you certainly aren't quoting me correctly.

What axe did you say you weren't grinding?

Sorry, did you not say

"Did you expect the paper of 2000 years to act like it was printed on eternal paper?"

No exe, just a bit of fun with facts

 

[Kenny]

Just Read your link. Seems to consist of probables and small percentages.

Considering the nt was not compiled/canonized until 300+ years after jcs death. Seems odd to claim first and second century (probably) documents were parts of the nt when it didn't exist. They were used to compile the nt, several other gospels.

There are gnostic Gospel as old.

Please adjust your glasses when you read.

And, as I have said before, yes... the Gnostics were there at the time of the writing of the Epistles. They dealt with the subject.

The reason that I know you have an axe is because I admit there were the Gnostics but you are hell bent to say there was no Gospel no matter what proof there is that there was and the fact that the oldest fragments match todays versions.

 

[ChristineM]

Please adjust your glasses when you read.

And, as I have said before, yes... the Gnostics were there at the time of the writing of the Epistles. They dealt with the subject.

The reason that I know you have an axe is because I admit there were the Gnostics but you are hell bent to say there was no Gospel

More ad hominem, how very predictably

Who says there was no gospel??? Are a made up story eh?


Please adjust your brain... End of story

 

[Kenny]

Sorry, did you not say

"Did you expect the paper of 2000 years to act like it was printed on eternal paper?"

No exe, just a bit of fun with facts

LOL Did you just cherry pick?