New Testament original texts, where are they?

a reply to: Seede
And the Dead Sea Scrolls were MANY copies of the whole Tanakh( plus Enoch minus Esther) plus some messianic prophecies and some Essene doctrine, some spells and a copper scroll plus the war scroll. Not just scraps the Catholic church uses it to translate new editions since 1966'

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: chr0naut

You threw out the claim where is the evidence that supports it?

Rylands Library Papyrus P52 - Wikipedia The earliest dated manuscript to date.

List of New Testament Papyri - Wikipedia

As to the Greek Classics, the classical period ended circa 600 AD. Here's a Wikipedia article on the Transmission of the Greek Classics. From the article, you will see that we have very few texts prior to the 1,200 AD.

The original Vedic texts were composed from 1,700 BCE to about 500 BCE. The oldest Vedic texts (from Nepal) are dated 1,100 AD. - again from Wikipedia

a reply to: chr0naut
Wikipedia, wow. And this thread is not about vedas. The oldest texts are the two I've mentioned already and are dated after 300AD. And one leaf? That's not enough. Good misdirection with the Greek and Hindu comparison though. I'm sorry that isn't enough to convince most people. Faith is so important because of a lack of proof.

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: chr0naut
I have no faith in that whatsoever.

And yet you would seem to have faith in the woo woo site: bibliotecapleyades.com (actually a typo, it should read bibliotecapleyades.net)?

Get real !!!

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: chr0naut
Wikipedia, wow. And this thread is not about vedas. The oldest texts are the two I've mentioned already and are dated after 300AD. And one leaf? That's not enough. Good misdirection with the Greek and Hindu comparison though. I'm sorry that isn't enough to convince most people. Faith is so important because of a lack of proof.

Nope, 51 fragments, or individual books or whole new testaments before 300 AD.

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: ketsuko
I'm not doing any railing, I'm asking logical questions. When did that become a problem? No one seems to be mad but you.

You are the only one saying I am mad.

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: chr0naut
... Faith is so important because of a lack of proof ...

Not really.

I don't recall Christ ever saying anything like "Let he who has proof of me ..." However He does say many times things like "He who believes in me ..."

Belief is not dependent upon proof.

In fact, most of our most important scientific breakthroughs are made because a scientist somewhere simply had faith that there was something more without actual proof that this was true. It was because of that faith or belief if you will that they were driven to experiment and study until they were able to prove it was so. Of course, they don't always discover what they think they will, but even that is enlightening.

a reply to: ketsuko
Because I am the one you were accusing of railing(is that a thing?) on people. I'm not the most sensitive but I am not rude because I ask for proof or don't agree with everyone. I would like to see you add something to the discussion.

a reply to: ketsuko

It is for some people.

a reply to: ketsuko scientific breakthroughs have nothing to do with missing manuscripts. Can science prove God now? I guess it's a matter of faith having precedent in some while others require proof. Who can say what the better method is. I want to believe in The Most High God, the Holy Spirit, but I have a hard time with this syncretic myth.

a reply to: chr0naut

Why don't you quote me saying I have faith in the Dead Sea Scrolls? I gave someone a website where they can read it. That's all. You don't need to be hostile with me I'm not bothering you. Maybe you are just mad that I asked the question in the first place, I don't know. Try and contribute something relevant instead of whatever your trying to do.

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: ketsuko

It is for some people.

Well as you are the one into logical thinking here, let me remind you that while all eagles are birds, not all birds are eagles.

You admit here that belief is dependent on proof for some people, but your thread is predicated on a logical argument that it holds true for all. All people should find that belief is dependent on proof in your mind. My argument, including the example using science shows that this is simply not always true.

So perhaps you need some kind of concrete evidence of God before you can find faith, but such is not the case for all. And arguing your position as if such should be the case for all based on your belief alone is a bit myopic.

a reply to: chr0naut
Where, and are they the originals?

a reply to: chr0naut

Because if they aren't the originals, its not what I ask but I do not believe you, honestly, that there is anything older than the codex sinaiticus and the Vatican is not saying anything about it.

a reply to: ketsuko
Yes I just said that with less words. Thanks.

a reply to: ketsuko

Science is based on the obervable so is useless for proving God. We can imagine him like your a theoretical physicists but if you can't see him you can't prove him.

a reply to: ketsuko
Still a n interesting thread so I hope you enjoy it.

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: chr0naut

Why don't you quote me saying I have faith in the Dead Sea Scrolls? I gave someone a website where they can read it. That's all. You don't need to be hostile with me I'm not bothering you. Maybe you are just mad that I asked the question in the first place, I don't know. Try and contribute something relevant instead of whatever your trying to do.

Fair enough, the DSS were significant textually in regard to Judaeo-Christian scripture, but not to the New Testament, which was the topic of the OP.

The simple answer to the OP is that we don't have the original texts, just copies and bits of copies. Does the absence of the original copies disprove the existence or content of the originals?

We don't really have the originals of things for the majority stuff of human history. Does that actually change anything? Does it negate that history? Does it break our understandings of things no longer directly evidenced?

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: chr0naut

Because if they aren't the originals, its not what I ask but I do not believe you, honestly, that there is anything older than the codex sinaiticus and the Vatican is not saying anything about it.

Perhaps the Vatican is not the prime authority in New Testament textual analysis and criticism?

For ages the Vatican stood by the Vulgate codex but now they admit it is not the best choice as a translation or source document.

a reply to: chr0naut
They even use the DSS now