1. no, with in the first few centuries, perhaps before 300 ad, though i think the first complete copy of the book of john came about between 200-300 ad.

2. from what i understand it, they are copies, like there was an original written, and then people copied from it in their own words.

my point is, 24k copies consisting of 1 or 2 lines means nothing as far as the way its used in this thread.

now as far as each copy being in their own words, and we not having the origional, when you have 2 lines slightly different but are supposed to be a copy of the same original, you really cant tell which is in the true sense of the origional but when you have like 10 copys of the same line each slightly varried, you can get a much better idea of the origional.

though of course this brings in the issue of now you hgave this line that has 30 some people that copied it in this way and 5 people copied it that way. what if the 30 people didnt actually undertand the line? now we have lines passed on from people who didnt understand it themselfs.

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Apr 16 2013 06:30am

the first link provided by "CPK001" in post#242 and my link in post#248 give quite good descriptions of the overall issue and the earliest (quite) complete manuscripts of the new testament
the issue is not the number of fragments/copies in existence but when they were produced, that is the original issue for discussion in this thread
please read post#238 and go from there
(no need to explain literary concordance to me, have done it myself with middle high german texts/fragments
and have a few major middle high german texts in scientific editions)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#New_Testament_manuscripts

whether the information is right or wrong, i was argueing that it dosnt matter.

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Apr 16 2013 07:39am

what does that have to do with the ongoing discussion? the issue is NOT the number BUT when they were produced
please start at post#238 and continue to read the relevant posts

to your update: you are arguing a totally different point which was not part of the discussion

This post was edited by brmv on Apr 16 2013 07:45am

The dates of these manuscripts range from c. 125 (the John Ryland's manuscript, P52; oldest copy of John fragments) to the introduction of printing in Germany in the 15th century. The vast majority of these manuscripts date after the 10th century.

theres alot in the link twords the end of the section on the new testament theres links to many of the actuall pyparus fragments that stilll exist.

as well theres a table showing how many manuscripts and the corresponding centuries. (though just for the greek manuscripts)

I didnt reply to any ones post with my post. still a valid point and on topic.

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Apr 16 2013 07:47am

NOT for the discussion we have going on
the whole argument is about the claimed time frame for the christian manuscripts in the op

if you want to argue how many fragments exist - who cares, there are more and more being found from the 10th century onwards
if you want to argue how good the concordance is - who cares, it might go quite close to the original from which the copies were made
if you want to argue that the literary accuracy equals veracity of content, then we have to disagree - but that is outside of this thread

thats why no one was replied to with my post, you are the one that replied to me.

the time frame for the 24000 chirsitan manuscrips listed in the OP is from 125- 1500

though that dosnt really matter in the grand scheme of things.

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Apr 16 2013 07:59am

no argument on that time frame
and the emphasis is fragmentary manuscripts, only around 50 are close to complete manuscripts
while i agree with your added line

it clearly seems to matter for the creator of the table in the op
and those who religiously quote it

and yes, i replied to your post because within the frame of the discussion it was creating a red herring

This post was edited by brmv on Apr 16 2013 08:05am

That is sounds believable, unlike the claim in the OP.

my point has been that most the manuscripts are fragmented so the massiveness of 24000 holds little value.

perhaps a misunderstadning?

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Apr 16 2013 08:43am