Joined: Mar. 2007
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 31 2011,13:10)|
|Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 31 2011,12:46)|
|This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings.|
Actually not a scrap of any original manuscript exists (or is known to exist).
I could be wrong, but I believe the oldest manuscript dealing with Jesus is the Gospel of Thomas, which is Gnostic in tone.
Perhaps god preserved it so we would know it is the most reliable history of Jesus.
Apologists: old = original
Oh yeah, I keep forgetting (because the fundies won't even discuss) the whole concept of the gnostics and the mysteries.
Oh man, what Paul did to the religion of Jesus.
"old = original"
Strawman. That is not stated at all. If you read it thoroughly, it states specifically why the Bible is the most reliable manuscript of antiquity. It says nothing about whether we have the original works...we don't, and no one claims to. But, we have *very* old fragments to base our claims of reliability upon.
It also proves how accurately the documents have been copied throughout generations. Also, if you had destroyed all of the Bible. The early Christian church fathers combined have quoted it almost in it's entirety. Just another interesting tidbit.
The significance of the dates on the chart are worth note.
Read for content and meaning rather than throw up something that is not mentioned and act as if that is what is being claimed.
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero