Joined: Oct. 2009
OK, FtK, let's go
|The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by critics. But, if the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer.|
Oh but wait, there's a major difference between the documents in these two sentences. Can you guess what it is?
Hint: The new Testament is listed as a book, while the others are listed as authors.
Why don't you tell us all who wrote the Gospel According to John? Oh wait, you can't because no one has a clue.
|This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings.|
Really, so Egyptian hieroglyphics should be even more reliable than biblical manuscripts. There are certainly more of them and they are carved in stone, not wimpy ass papyrus. Oh, and they are internally consistent too.
|Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy... and they are very consistent.|
There's another massively wrong statement (actually two) right there.
They COULD be cross-checked for accuracy. But no one has successfully done so. The books of the New Testament cannot be corroborated with other historical documents of the time.
While it is impossible to corroborate much of the things that happened because no one kept track of Jesus of Nazareth and Matthew and Titus and all those people, the major historical figures of the time can be matched up...
and the Bible fails miserably. For example, Pontius Pilate was a complete and utter asshole, at least according to Josephus. He offended everyone of any religion, he brutally suppressed a Samaritan uprising, etc, etc. That really doesn't match the kind of cowardly lion version from the gospels.
Likewise, the Roman census and such. Placing the census of Quirinius (Luke 2:1) at the time of Herod (Matthew 2:1, Luke 1:5) is a just stupid.
Josephus recorded the execution of forty-two people who had staged an unsuccessful revolt against the Idumean. Josephus recorded an eclipse of the moon that occurred during the night of this execution. This allows for precise astronomical calculations which sets the date of execution as March 13th 4 BCE. Now we are told that Herod died a few days after this execution, which makes his death around the second half of March 4 BCE. (Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p61-63)
Josephus clearly states that the census took place thirty seven years after Caesar defeated Antony at Actium, which was fought on September 2, 31 BCE (another precise dating based on astronomy) based on our present system of reckoning. This means that census under Quirinius took place in the year AD6. We also know, from Roman sources, that Quirinius was legate (or governor) of Syria between Volusius Saturninus and Caecilius Creticus Silonus, which makes his tenure last for six years, from 6 to 12 CE. These dates are therefore consistent with Josephus' reckoning. (Guignebert, Jesus: p97-100)
So, within the New Testament there are massive contradictions with all other recorded history. Yes, there are things that are correct. Herod and Pilate did exist and they were in the positions claimed at the time.
This does NOT automatically make everything in the Bible 100% correct (as shown above).
This covers a huge list of contradictions ranging from simply who is Joseph's father to the simple FACT that Jesus (by God's previous decree) cannot be the messiah (Jesus is a 10th generation Moabite, who are forbidden to enter the temple by God).
I could go on and on.
In the first paragraph of your 'source' I found two major, fundamental errors (consistency and external accuracy) and a host of claims that don't mean a hill of beans to the accuracy of the New Testament. We also see several fallacious arguments regarding this.
Hey FtK, if a million lemmings jumped off the bridge, would you do it to? L. Ron Hubbards Dianetics has sold millions of copies, does that make it as accurate as the Bible?
Of course not, argument by numbers... same as the argument of the number of manuscripts of the New Testament. If there was only ONE copy extant, but it is could be corroborated with other historical documents, then it would be more accurate than 5600 copies of documents that cannot be corroborated with other historical documents.
There you go. I have little hope for the rest of the article, given the huge problems with the first paragraph.
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.