Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 31 2011,13:36)|
|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.
I was not talking to you about the 'old = original'.
I do, however, note your complete disregard for any of the points I made.
You have failed to show how 'many copies' (whether orally memorized or written) = 'accurate and correct'.
It does not.
You have failed to show how the New Testament (as claimed in the article you quoted) is corroborated in any meaningful way by other historical documents. In fact, the New Testament is specifically disputed by the majority of historical documents. heck, the simple fact that Egyptian (and Sumerian and Chinese) writing exists before, during, and after the flood handily negates that.
You have failed to show any how the New Testament can be internally consistent when it is not. There's a list of at least 100 internal contradictions, any time you want to start on them.
The best argument I have heard about all of this is from apologists (like yourself) who claim that some parts of the Bible are literal and some parts are not. I have yet to hear anyone state how they can tell.
You made claims (well, you linked to someone who made claims) that were so easily refuted, it's surprising that you haven't heard the refutations. Though I guess if you ignore anyone who says stuff you don't agree with it gets easier.
I'll take from this that you cannot refute any of my claims. Now run along, I'm sure Bible study is coming up and you wouldn't want any real facts to get in the way of your study of myth.
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.