Talk:Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

You need to study more. There are many partial manuscripts than the full versions from the 300s and 400s A.D. Most works of antiquity have their earliest copies dating to the Middle Ages. The Bible stands alone for quantity of ancient manuscripts, reliability between copies, and early age of transcribing. And that doesn't even count the extra biblical writings of the early church fathers. Learn together 22:41, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Can you write coherently please, I can't understand what you are trying to say. Please read your post again to see if it makes sense. I was asking for a source for this assertion, not for you to repeat it to me. If you want to put this information in an encyclopedia someone has to have made this point previously otherwise it's original research. GodWarrior 23:09, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

You may wish to actually notice there is a source before writing. That information is well documented. It's only been around for 2 millennia... I am serious that you need to study more. That you didn't know this and the concept is foreign to you is unfortunate. Learn together 03:36, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I know you put a source. Thank you, that is all I was asking for. I was making the point that you shouldn't have put what seems like opinion in the article without sourcing it in the first place. This is basic stuff, you shouldn't have to be reminded. However, I still don't understand what you are trying to argue. You know the 300's and 400's is the same as the 4th and 5th century right? GodWarrior 12:05, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

But the source was in before I even wrote on this talk page. I was questioning why you would think it was opinion when it is already common knowledge in the field. I don't especially like providing a source in this case, as it makes it seem that this is the view of one work, when in fact it is not. Fact citations are usually used if one believes the information is false, hence I commented above. Based upon the hole in your knowlegdge in this area, I wanted to make sure you were aware the 4th and 5th century were the 300s and 400s. There was also the chance putting it in that form for you might spur your recollection of when Christianity became legal and their works were no longer burned, if you had read that sometime in your past. Learn together 18:44, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

First of all, you can add more than one source if you like, that would make it clear that many people hold this view. Secondly, regardless of what you feel the prevailing view in the field is, you still need a citation for statements like "...the King James Bible has been found to be largely accurate with only a few sections questioned." and "It has also been widely noted just how accurately the Bible has been copied, as is seen by comparing ancient versions that existed in different locations thousands of miles apart. The quantity of copies of the Bible from ancient times either in full, fragmented parts, or quotes from the writings of the ancient fathers, makes it by far the most copied and reliable document of antiquity. To question the Bible, one must throw out all ancient writings as being inaccurate since they are not nearly as well documented, as extensive, or copied as accurately between versions." The average reader will ask "widely noted by whom?" if you don't have a citation for things like this. I am not sure why you keep insisting that I have a "hole in knowlegdge" in this area (it's spelled knowledge, btw). For your information, I have taken a number of college-level history courses with the majority being from this time period. I also don't see the relevance of noting that Christian documents were often burned before the Edict of Milan. Just because Christians were persecuted before that time, you cannot give their holy book a pass in terms of it's reliability. You also make a big deal about how the Bible is more reliable than other ancient documents. In general, I would agree with this assertion (excepting of course original stone inscriptions and the like). However, you fail to note that other ancient documents do not claim to be the infallible word of God and therefore are not held to the same standard. GodWarrior 20:56, 27 August 2007 (EDT)