Religion and History
 

As per Neals *request* I've started this new thread to continue the discussion with Subman1.

It's always entertaining when someone's 'proof' consists of claiming he's right and then trying to bait his opponent. Unfortunately, it detracts from both the argument itself and the credibility of the person doing it. Back to the real argument.

Not true. What 10,000 Latin and 9300 'early' (I assume you mean Greek) versions and "24k manuscripts" are you talking about? The site referring to manuscripts you can actually look at lists less that one hundred, and they are mainly partials. Please show a direct reference to the numbers you keep throwing at me. So far the only thing 'proven' is that you can make extravagant claims, without showing any actual documentation.

I've 'proved' nothing of the kind. That website makes the same claim, and he doesn't show any documentation either. So far it's all just hot air.

Now, if you look again at the second site I pointed you to, you'll see what the researcher there claims are ALL the extant manuscripts. There are nowhere near 5000, or even 500.

This might help get the numbers in order:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...result#PPP1,M1

You haven't lifted a finger, you've just made wild claims; and I've proven nothing in your favor. Please show some actual evidence.

Look it up. Just googled it and found several sites on the net backing my claim. Tired of people baiting me by saying i am making wild claims. I am not the one baiting here Steve. Look in the mirror.

-S

PS. I'll even give you one - http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/reliabletext.html

PPS. Here is another - http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep7.html . Let me guess, you won't be satidfied till you have 10K sites saying the same thing.

PPPS. I think I'm done with this conversation.

PPPPS. Here is a site showing my 24K claim Think I know what I'm talking about now? Thanks. http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm

Just as college professors won't accept wikipedia as a source, most won't even accept internet sources. Especially just "some guy's" website. Especially a "research institute" with a stated agenda.

PD

Religion usually makes for uncritical thinking, because that is part of both its method and agenda: you shall not critically analyse and test and find out yourself - you should blindly believe, that is the deal. refusing to demand evidence and reasonable checks and questions, is declared a virtue. In reality it is circumcision done to the brain.

This guy talks of intelligence, maybe the word is being used in a slightly different and wider meaning in English than in German, but if replacing "intelligence" with "education" for sure, he surely has a very valid point in his observation - one only needs to look at the debates on religion and believing in this forum :D

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...ode=402381&c=2

http://www.rlynn.co.uk/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...3b3f87ea913ad0

Logic reveals the flaws in religion, that is why reglion is do deeply anti-intellectual, and the natural antidot to dogmatic believing is education. It does not really need a professor to tell you that, eh?

None of those sites "back" your claim; they all repeat it. Again, anyone showing actual manuscripts shows far less. I'm not asking you to repeat someone else's claims - I'm asking to see the evidence. So far you've shown nothing but claims.

I'm not trying to bait you. I just want to see actual evidence.

I'm not baiting you. I'm trying to give a reasoned argument, sticking to the facts. If I were baiting I would be saying things like "If I keep this up, you'll prove the entire lot for me without lifting a finger on my end!" But I try not to argue that way.

No, I will be satisfied when you show me one site that actually lists the manuscripts. The only site I've seen that shows actual documents has less than 100 (or thereabouts).

Sorry to hear it. I consider this a quest for knowledge.

Sorry to keep quoting every little bit, but once again you give a site that claims it, without showing any of it.