My Photo
Mobilise this Blog





New Zealand Conservative


AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Put not your trust in princes | Main | HEADS-UP: "The Briefing" »



Its also worth bearing in mind that these manuscripts and fragments exist in spite of a systematic program to destroy every vestige of the Christian faith. From AD90 to AD313 no less than 10 Roman administrations tried to root out and burn such literature. These programs were sophisticated and in some cases empire-wide.


Wow Ian you really have Richard Dawkins on the run. Absolutely career-ending? Is there anything he will be forced to resign from as a result?


Isn't it great Peter that a little wee book from little wee NZ can pop up on the great man's website...?

Probably thanks to Amazon and a reader's review there...who knows...

Still, Dawkins makes so many mistakes it's hard to know where to Hitchens, he lets his religion get in the way of his objectivity.


I don't like to break this news to you Ian .. but the contributors to the thread on the Dawkins blog don's seem to be supporting you?


D'ya think? With respect Peter...the last place I would expect to find support for Eve's Bite is on Dawkins' "official" website...

Their problem is however that they haven't read the book, nor do they appear particularly clued up on biblical scholarship (why is that a surprise? - Dawkins himself relies on scholarship that's a century out of date!).


Nor, I might add, have you read the book Peter...which leaves you flying blind on this one.

Shout Above The Noise

I think Peter will choke on the 'Born or Made' chapter.

Sam Finnemore

I was lucky enough to get a review copy for Craccum which I'll start on shortly.

Danyl Mclauchlan

Incidentally, you do realise that anyone who registers on the site can create new threads? The posts and arguments come from 'Dawkins' in much the same way as my posts come from Ian Wishart.

Contrary to the assertions over at Dawkins, the manuscripts do not differ on and key points of Christian doctrine.

The truth is that there are countless variations in the early manuscripts, some of which ARE key. 1 John sets out the doctrine of the Trinity which doesn't appear in any other Gospel and appears to have been added to John some time in the 4th Century. It simply doesn't appear in early manuscripts. Neither does the story of the women taken in sin.

Danyl Mclauchlan

John sets out the doctrine of the Trinity which doesn't appear in any other Gospel

Errata: The Comma Johanneum is in the epsitle of John, not the Gospel.


It must be hard for you Danyl because you were baptized in lemon juice , however, John 1 1:9 will please you, as GRACE lifts the burden .


Oh please Danyl don't get all biblcally scholar on us. You know jack shit ...give it up.


Hate to burst your bubble, Danyl, but the entire Bible is riddled with the Trinity doctrine.


It can be noted that there are at least two possible sets of gospel manuscript fragments from the mid first century - 7Q5 from near Qumran and Magdalen P64 from Luxor, though both are controversial. While the early date of 7Q5 is well established, its small size means that its identity as a fragment of Mark has been challenged. In the case of P64 it is clearly from Matthew but its early date has been disputed. These fragment could not fail to be controversial regardless of the evidence as there acceptance would disprove a lot of cherished theories about the late date and unreliability of the gospels.


if anyone wants to read dawkins site and bypass the registration crap, use this

login: fubar
password: isdead

David Winter

Ian said
Still, Dawkins makes so many mistakes it's hard to know where to begin

Hmm, I read the chapter of eves bite on evolution (that opens with a quote form Ann Coulter!) the other day. I think you want to be careful about throwing stones from your glass house...

Danyl Mclauchlan

Hate to burst your bubble, Danyl, but the entire Bible is riddled with the Trinity doctrine.

The entire Bible is riddled with passages that Christians interpret as referring to the Trinity Doctrine. The word trinity appears nowhere in either Testament.

However, the Bible is also riddled with passages that explicitly refute the polytheism of the trinity and refer to God as singular, plural, indivisible ect. John 1 was the only passage that directly addressed the notion of a tripartite God.

All that is beside the point, however. Its a classic case of textual variation between NT manuscripts. Some scholars have claimed there are more variations between the early manuscripts than there are letters in the entire New Testament. Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman have both written extensively on this subject, although I doubt they hold a candle to Ms Coulter for research and intellectual rigour.


Fyi Danyl ; "Behold I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and all over the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you."

Psycho Milt

Could we watch you trampling on some serpents and scorpions and, er, not getting hurt? I for one would love to see it...


Danyl...try Matt 28:18-20 for starters as an expression of the Trinity direct from Christ.

Secondly, read this from Tektonics:

Which deals with Ehrman and your concerns about variants.

The comments to this entry are closed.