So, wait a minute, we already know that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest writings out of the four gospels. A fact that backs up this claim is that both Luke and Matthew copy huge chunks out of Mark, thus forming the three book synoptic gospels. These exclude John, which is known to have been written much later (like 120CE-140CE last I checked, could be wrong though). According to this article the fragments discovered have been dated to around 80 CE a full fifty to sixty years after the death of Jesus according to those same manuscripts (the gospels) depending on what historical account to which you subscribe. Jesus birth year and death year can be reasonably disputed (five years one way or the other) through the gospel accounts having conflicting historical events tied to both but a fixed start year of his teaching openly (I have honestly forgotten in which gospel it says in his thirtieth year). So much for atheists believing in science is the last line in the article. This is an article about how science has helped the Christian community to uncover and date fragments of a document from their early church. First of all, I do not know anyone, atheist or theist, who [believes] in science. I would like to think that I have an understanding of the scientific method and how it is employed but I do not believe in science. Second, one could only call it ironic that the author of this article would mock science, seeing as science was used to verify the authenticity of this actually amazing discovery. From this an atheist is suppose to be angry? They are saying that atheists are angry that several Egyptian mummies were destroyed so that more could be learned about the time period... well Im not. I would love to see how those fragments, once translated, stack up against the translations of the Bible that are being used today! I just got finished reading the Nag Hammadi and I would love to see how close to the Gospel of Mark, in its various translations available today, is to these fragments. Still just because something is really old, does not make it true or for that matter even authentic. It just means its old.
Posted on: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 02:20:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015