The New Testament....More accurate than your history book :P

page: 1
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+4 more 
posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   


I put the video there for people who are actually interested in learning, but I will summarize for those who are extremely hard headed, and maybe that will get you interested enough to at least watch.

First off, the reliability of an ancient historical document is determined by the number of manuscripts available. This is so because the more manuscripts we have, the easier it is to re-create the original work. The closer to the time frame the copy is to that of the original work the more reliable.

So, lets compare the books of the New Testament to the writing we pull a lot of our History from today.

Lets start off with a list of how close in time the manuscripts of other literature s of antiquity are to the time of their writers in comparison with those of the New Testament.

pliny the younger from the time he wrote to the closest manuscript 750 years.
Caesar-Gaelic wars-from time he wrote to closest manuscript 1000 years.
Plato from the time he wrote to closest manuscript 1200 years.
Aristotle-Poetics- time he wrote to closest manuscript 1400 years.
Sophocles time he wrote to closest manuscript 1400 years.
Euripides time he wrote to closest manuscript 1500 years.
New Testament time wrote to closest manuscripts 50-75 years....New Testament wins this round

Now, lets look at the number of manuscripts documented for some of histories writers


Caesar-Gaelic wars-closest 1000 years-manuscripts documented 10...
Plato-closest 1200 years-manuscripts documented 7...
Tacitus-Roman historian-manuscripts documented




posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Is there any possible way to get a point-for-point bulletin instead of watching an hour's worth of video? I don't trust that this video will be worth my time, and I'd rather skip all the malarky and get straight to the points being raised. Filter the broth for the meat, if you will.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 



First off, the reliability of an ancient historical _/b] is determined by the number of manuscripts available. This is so because the more manuscripts we have, the easier it is to re-create the original work. The closer to the time frame the copy is to that of the original work the more reliable.

Reliability does not in any way infer the verity of the document. It simply means the number of manuscripts makes it easier to determine how accurately it was recorded. This goes for myth and fantasy as well.



Now, lets look at the number of manuscripts documented for some of histories writers

This also proves little to nothing. We have only one document of some things. But they were carved in stone by the original authors. So we can assume they were somewhat accurate.



So for all you atheist who like to bash the historical accuracy of the Bible.....um most likely what you have found is less reliable based on evidence.....the video offers more information hope you enjoy.

Here again, accuracy is not verity.

ETA: I will however, watch the video to the extent that it can keep my interest, and not use circular reasoning.


edit on 9/4/2013 by Klassified because: eta
edit on 9/4/2013 by Klassified because: redaction



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


I guess if you have the time, then go for it. You sound like a much better judge of the technical details than myself, in any case.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 

Not sure the point of this thread. Are you trying to prove that the bible is more of a textbook/history book (factual), rather than a written history of one people and their traditions and folk tales?

What about the Hindu holy book (The Mahabharata)? It's older, and I'm going to assume it has been copied just as much. Do you consider that a factual book or a book used as a moral compass? Even in your own thread, you mention Homer's Iliad as being copied as much as the bible. People weren't reading the Iliad as truth, but as entertainment that perhaps they could learn from.

A book read as a moral compass, or for cultural purposes would be copied more than a letter an ancient general wrote to his commander (as an example).



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 





First off, the reliability of an ancient historical document is determined by the number of manuscripts available. This is so because the more manuscripts we have, the easier it is to re-create the original work. The closer to the time frame the copy is to that of the original work the more reliable.


Wrong.

Just because a myth is copied a bunch of times doesn't make it any more reliable.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   


First off, the reliability of an ancient historical document is determined by the number of manuscripts available. This is so because the more manuscripts we have, the easier it is to re-create the original work.
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Hey that sounds great, so let's see what a real honest historian has to say about it shall we ?
You obviously like watching videos so here is a nice little video for your educational needs.




posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by collietta
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 

Not sure the point of this thread. Are you trying to prove that the bible is more of a textbook/history book (factual), rather than a written history of one people and their traditions and folk tales?

What about the Hindu holy book (The Mahabharata)? It's older, and I'm going to assume it has been copied just as much. Do you consider that a factual book or a book used as a moral compass? Even in your own thread, you mention Homer's Iliad as being copied as much as the bible. People weren't reading the Iliad as truth, but as entertainment that perhaps they could learn from.

A book read as a moral compass, or for cultural purposes would be copied more than a letter an ancient general wrote to his commander (as an example).





The bible is a collection of books and letters, not just one book. Many of which are eye witness accounts. If you are going to say that about the Hindu holy book back it up with evidence please. Yes I consider it factual. It was written by real people who were alive during that day, and many are eye witness accounts or recorded eye witness accounts.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


The answer to this is really quite simple.
The further back in history you go, the less of it there is to learn and pass on.
This also means less of it has been left out for lack of space in the history book.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


listverse.com...

So this is literal history!?!?!?!

What a sick piece of *%&^ your god is.
edit on 4-9-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ChristianJihad
 


I would love to see the Christian rebuttal in this debate as that is what it appears to be, why didn't you post that part? Much of what he said is opinionated. For example, All the changes to the new testament happened closer to its production? There is no evidence for this claim, and it is not even logical. A year after something is written or even 10 years people could have most likely looked at the originals....



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Dang....people of mine.
Time to get reading, that's the only way you'll discover your reality......refuse to be a victim of the worldly view...the only way forward is to become aware of what's written for you....It has amazingly....all the answers and Truth....I promise you



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I posted the video for those interested friend. It is merely for those who wish to see and wish to hear. Not for those who don't want to spend an hour of their day to see if what they thought they knew was right or wrong.

For example, most of you don't recognize a lot of the events recorded in the Bible are eye witness accounts, or recordings of eye witness accounts...and this is why I say they are historically accurate, and more so than the other writings. The manuscript evidence is proof that is the same as the original, unlike all the other works such as Pliny the youngers which he references.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
So all you've proven is that the bible has a better chance of maintaining its original message because it has been copied more as well as having been copied closer to the original manuscript(s). That really doesn't say anything to how true the actual message is. The works of Shakespeare have been copied and recopied since he wrote them does that mean that Romeo and Juliet is a true story?
edit on 4-9-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


Do we have originals of the above works no we have copies, just like we do the Bible only the Bible has many more making it much more accurate to the original. Which is the point of the post. The Bible we have today is exactly the same as the First Bible written



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
So all you've proven is that the bible has a better chance of maintaining its original message because it has been copied more as well as having been copied closer to the original manuscript(s). That really doesn't say anything to how true the actual message is. The works of Shakespeare have been copied and recopied since he wrote them does that mean that Romeo and Juliet is a true story?
edit on 4-9-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)


Well, there are other things to take into consideration when you want to discuss if the events are real or not, but yes I wanted to give evidence that the Bible today is the Bible that was written 2000 years ago, because I come into contact with many who do not believe that. My point is that if you do not believe the New Testament is accurate to the original all the above works are not accurate to their original and therefore need to be tossed out as viable candidates for historical references.
edit on 4-9-2013 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Not true. The Book of Mark, Chapter 16, verses 9-20 were added later, and don't appear in the earlier transcripts. Additionally, the story of the adulteress and the famous saying "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" wasn't added until 1000 years after the fact.
edit on 4-9-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


And any good study Bible will tell you this at the bottom of the page, you are not telling me anything new. This shows why the number of manuscripts are important when relating a work back to its original. We can tell that those verses were most likely additions in the latter manuscripts. However 99.5% of the 5600 Greek manuscripts are spot on.
edit on 4-9-2013 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
reply to post by Klassified
 


Do we have originals of the above works no we have copies, just like we do the Bible only the Bible has many more making it much more accurate to the original. Which is the point of the post. The Bible we have today is exactly the same as the First Bible written


I understand what you're saying, OP. But I'm not so sure that it's true. Even among scholars, there is much debate between age and sheer numbers, regarding manuscripts. However, even if it is true, as has been said, an accurately recorded or copied myth, is still a myth. Just because someone throws in a little historical fact, does not make the events surrounding those facts any more reliable as written down.

Homer wrote about Troy, which we have found. But that does not automatically mean the tales he weaves about Troy are factual. It just means he used a real place to set the stage for his yarn.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and the other authors mentioned in the chart at the beginning of the paper. On the other hand, if the critics acknowledge the historicity and writings of those other individuals, then they must also retain the historicity and writings of the New Testament authors; after all, the evidence for the New Testament's reliability is far greater than the others. The Christian has substantially superior criteria for affirming the New Testament documents than he does for any other ancient writing. It is good evidence on which to base the trust in the reliability of the New Testament.


carm.org...





top topics
 
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join