It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
Now, lets look at the number of manuscripts documented for some of histories writers
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.
First off, the reliability of an ancient historical document is determined by the number of manuscripts available.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.
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First off, the reliability of an ancient historical document is determined by the number of manuscripts available.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.
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).
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)
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
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.