Search results

Provide the names of these Old Latin manuscripts that contain Tobit from the first four centuries. Your claimed: Provide the names of these Old Latin manuscripts that contain Tobit from the first four centuries. So you admit you made claims for which you have zero evidence. I wholeheartedly...

No one made that claim. That is nothing more than a strawman argument you must resort to in order draw attention away from your errors concerning the Greek text of Tobit.

My point is to show your claims are false and cannot be verified with objective evidence.

I was addressing your original claim in post 39. You stated: NOW you have admitted your claim is wrong. And by the way there are no Latin manuscripts of Tobit that date that early. Also we have no Bibles (i.e. codices) before the 4th century A.D. No, we have only a few fragments and that's...

It is not what I say but what the objective evidence supports or does not support. There are no Greek manuscripts for Tobit before the 4th century A.D.

False. We have none that predate the 4th century A.D. Also false. We have no Greek manuscripts of Tobit that predate the 4th century A.D. Which means, given your comments above, you have no objective evidence. That is not how a codex was made. They did not use scrolls. The oldest...

Don't care.

I am sorry but he is wrong concerning the date being B.C. Track down the sources and see for yourself.

Now that is a VERY interesting point. The thing that pretty much changed the game was the advent of the codex, and it was the Christian who preferred the codex over scrolls. Given the portability, ease of use, and the fact one could get so much more into a codex than on a scroll the reason why...

I never disputed the terms used. Moreover I said in post 127 I used the term Apocrypha merely as a convenient designation and nothing more. What Jerome or anyone else calls them means nothing to me. You are arguing against something I have never claimed. Again I point out DOZENS of time some...

I did not say anyone was correct. That is an example of the fallacy argumentum ad populum. The truth of a matter does not depends on a majority. I have. My case is accuracy, honesty, objective evidence, not making claims which cannot be supported, not making sweeping generalizations...

It would be pure speculation on my part. That's right. Now you are getting it. Don't make claims for which you have no evidence. You could but it does not help your case in any way. And that's what make it moot. Asking for objective evidence is not unfair. It is requirement. I disagree...

I never said it was nor do I believe that. I was making an all inclusive statement concerning any book of the Apocrypha. If it make you feel better I will reword it no problem. We have no manuscript that date back to that time. All the Greek manuscripts of the LXX which contain at least some...

Yes it is because I has never claimed otherwise (regard to what you said in post 121) and it has no bearing on the facts I presented. We have no manuscript that date back to that time. All the Greek manuscripts of the LXX which contain at least some books of the Apocrypha date to the 4th...

I never said you did. I was simply pointing out important facts. The sequence of events in this conversation went like this. You stated in post 82: To which I respond "Cite any primary source before the time of Christ which states they accepted these books." Then in reference to that...

Again your point is moot because I never claimed they did. Nevertheless that does not change the objective evidence. We have no manuscript that date back to that time. All the Greek manuscripts of the LXX which contain at least some books of the Apocrypha date to the 4th century A.D. or...

I already have. You are welcome to your opinion, however, I fully believe it was written before the 4th century A.D. It is pure speculation with zero objective evidence. Again, we have no manuscript that date back to that time. All the Greek manuscripts of the LXX which contain at least some...

I never made that claim, nor do I believe that. I only pointed out the evidence (i.e. what we have verses what we don't have).

:sleep:

Which does nothing to support your false claims.