Noah's Ark. Fact or Fiction?

:rollinglaugh::rollinglaugh::rollinglaugh:

[SIZE="3"]HA HA HA HA[/SIZE]

That's the biggest load of crap i've heard in a long time!

I'd like to see these first person accounts from witnesses.

Biblical scholarship has taken note of fairly recent claims made on behalf of a 2,000-year-old papyrus fragments in the Magdalen College Library at Oxford, England. Perhaps the mose ancient fragments of the New Testament in existence, to some observers this papyrus supports the contention that Matthew's Gospel is an eyewitness account.
Named Magdalen GR 17, this discovery may change the way the New Testament itself is viewed by some scholars. Because the hand writing reflects a style current in the first century before Christ, but which may have died out during the middle of the first century after Christ, some scholars say they have good reason to believe that parts of the New Testament were written much earlier than liberal modern scholarship had supposed. If this dating is accurate, the inescapable conclusion is that the four Gospels were composed by authors who remembered Jesus Christ from personal experienced or knew eyewitnesses who remembered Him.

So in other words, you don't have any first person accounts from witnesses?

So in other words, you don't have any first person accounts from witnesses?

The Gospels of Matthew, and John were eyewitness accounts, and Christians always believed that. The discovery in England only confirms that belief. Christians did not need a parchment that was 2,000 years old to convince us of that. Evidence for the Bible keeps being found and that is the thing that sets the Bible apart from other faiths.

Trouble is none of have seen this evidence you keep banging on about, is it all in your mind?

Again you say you don't need a parchment, because there is none, no first hand knowledge of Jesus outside of the Bible. That is why what you have is 'faith', there is nothing to back your claims up about jesus. i have no doubt there are stories surrounding historical figures and places of the time in the Bible.

Much like Robinhood and King Richard the Lionheart, No doubting the was a King Richard, though there is little to no evidence that supports a Robinhood, just stories, myths and legends.[/QUOTE

About four posts back Numpty you will see there is a 2,000 year old papyrus fragments found in the Magdalen college Libary at Oxford England named Magdalen GR 17. It is believed to be a first century account of Jesus. It's not in my head, it is a real document that has surrvived for 2,000 years. Hear again you are spouting off and ignoring evidence. I don't need this document myself because I would of have believed without it. Yet it does exist, and my claim is backed by Magdalen College at Oxford England. And Numpy, I have evidence for many of my claims.

Biblical scholarship has taken note of a fairly recent claim made on behalf of a 2,000 year old papyrus fragment in the Magdalen College Library at Oxford, England. Perhaps the most ancient fragments of the New Testament in existance, to some observers this papyrus supports the contention that Matthew's Gospel (is an eyewitness account.)

[url=http://www.british-israel.ca/Interview.htm]When Was the New Testament Written?[/url]

Biblical scholarship has taken note of a fairly recent claim made on behalf of a 2,000 year old papyrus fragment in the Magdalen College Library at Oxford, England. Perhaps the most ancient fragments of the New Testament in existance, to some observers this papyrus supports the contention that Matthew's Gospel (is an eyewitness account.)

When Was the New Testament Written?

Claim,...Prehaps,...Some observers. So thats a no then.

The Gospels of Matthew, and John were eyewitness accounts, and Christians always believed that. The discovery in England only confirms that belief. Christians did not need a parchment that was 2,000 years old to convince us of that. Evidence for the Bible keeps being found and that is the thing that sets the Bible apart from other faiths.

About four posts back Numpty you will see there is a 2,000 year old papyrus fragments found in the Magdalen college Libary at Oxford England named Magdalen GR 17. It is believed to be a first century account of Jesus. It's not in my head, it is a real document that has surrvived for 2,000 years. Hear again you are spouting off and ignoring evidence. I don't need this document myself because I would of have believed without it. Yet it does exist, and my claim is backed by Magdalen College at Oxford England. And Numpy, I have evidence for many of my claims.

Biblical scholarship has taken note of a fairly recent claim made on behalf of a 2,000 year old papyrus fragment in the Magdalen College Library at Oxford, England. Perhaps the most ancient fragments of the New Testament in existance, to some observers this papyrus supports the contention that Matthew's Gospel (is an eyewitness account.)

this evidence you "claim" is not conclusive of anything, if you go back and read my edit of your post you will see the appearance of these words a lot:

may, believed, If, taken note, maybe, thinks etc....



Like I said before GR 17 is inconclusive.
If that is your only piece of evidence you are surely working off of FAITH....

GR 17 is far more conclusive than any evidence put forward by believers in Evolution. This is a first century document that shows us that the Book of Matthew was a first century account of Christ. You can't blame the church for the Book of Matthew. Also, there are thousands of second and third century copies of the originals which are found in the Majority Text. So if you don't like GR 17, you still have to deal with the thousands of copies that agree with it. And these copies come from all over the world and from many different time periods. The Bible is the most documented Book of all time. No other Book on earth has as much supporting evidence than the Bible.

The "Magdalen" papyrus was purchased in Luxor, Egypt in 1901 by Reverend Charles Bousfield Huleatt (1863-1908), who identified the Greek fragments as portions of the Gospel of Matthew (Chapter 26:23 and 31) and presented them to Magdalen College, Oxford, where they are cataloged as P. Magdalen Greek 17 (Gregory-Aland P64) and whence they have their name. When the fragments were finally published by Colin H. Roberts in 1953, illustrated with a photograph, the hand was characterized as "an early predecessor of the so-called 'Biblical Uncial'" which began to emerge towards the end of the 2nd century. The uncial style is epitomised by the later biblical Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Comparative paleographical analysis has remained the methodological key for dating the manuscript: [SIZE="3"]the consensus is, ca AD 200[/SIZE].

----------------------------

Eyewitness account huh!??? Unless the person who wrote it was 200+ years old I find that kinda hard to believe!

Well you did not give a link, but that was the old consensus. Today they know that the writing is in a style that was common just before the birth of Christ and is believed to of died out before 100 A.D. Please, if you are going to make such statements, at least keep you information current. I gave you a current link, and that link gave you the current consensus. Your information from 1953 is not going to cut it.

please do give me a link, a credible link perferably a historical site.


here is mine:
Magdalen papyrus: Information and Much More from Answers.com

and i assure you the conseus was made in 1953 but has remained untill this day.

If you click on the link on post 106 that is where you will find it.
The handwriting reflects a style current before the first century but may have died out before the middle of the first century. German Papyrlolgist Carsten Peter Thiede made this discovery in 1994. Thiede is the director of the Institute for basic Epistemological research in Paderbon Germany. And I can assure you, the times are a changing. Old theories are giving way to new information.

Evolution takes as much or more faith than creationism.

The basis of the theory (evolution) goes directly against the laws of entropy, which are clearly obvious and easily measurable. How anyone can observe the vast complexity, and the unseen forces at work to balance and preserve nature, then conclude that it all came about due to random chance, is beyond me. It's beyond me that someone could have such a blind faith in random chance when 99999999999999999999 times out of 1000000000000000000000, random choice destroys and degrades. Mutations are virtually always a detriment to the species developement, yet they are at the foundation of evolution and it's widely accepted as fact. I can understand the skepticism of creationism, and I share in it, but evolution is much harder for me to believe.

The oppinion of 1 author doesn't override the consenseus of historians!

Oh please,
Prof. Carsten Peter Thiede was one of the greatest New Testament scholars in the world. He was not just an author. Thiede often advanced theories that challenged orthodox academic and theological scholarship based on thorough scientific analyses. Thiede was best known for his textual criticism of the Dead Sea Scrolls, including the identification of the 7Q5 papyrus as a fragment of the Gospel of Mark.