Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Klassified

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.


Homer's was written as fiction the Bible was written from people in that day about the events happening in that day, not as a myth or fairy tale. Let me ask you this, the Books of the Bible would have been in circulation in their day and time, I think we can all agree on that. Why wouldn't scholars have pointed out all the lies in their teachings? If Jesus wasn''t doing all those thing these people were writing about and telling people about why don't we have evidence of someone saying. "Well, them 12 crazy guys came rolling through town today talking about some imaginary guy on a donkey, and they even pretended the whole town was worshipping him at his feet." Ya'll are not putting the Bible into the times it was written and logically thinking about how people would react if what they were saying were lies.




posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   
There are LOTS of truth in the BIBLE. Unfortunately, people have been brainwashed by religion. Here's the kicker, that brainwashing is being done by those that are actually applying biblical principles. God's principles are what produces results. Here's a banking concept, being applied today.

For the LORD your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you.(Deut 15:6)
God doesn't break the rules HE made. The principles work for everyone: sinner and saint.

"As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest (Karma), cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease."-(Gen *:22)
Truth be told, i really feel sorry for people. The TRUTH can't set them free, when LIES abound! Dig in HIS WORD and learn HIS principles, so you can be set free.

Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.-(2 Tim 2:15)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 




Homer's was written as fiction the Bible was written from people in that day about the events happening in that day, not as a myth or fairy tale.


I do think that the story of Jesus, his virgin birth and narrow escape of death, as prophesied, the 3 wise men and the star, the miracles, the story of his "Vision Quest" and meeting Satan in the desert, his death and resurrection......all meant to be seen as an allegorical myth. It was never meant to be taken literally, in my opinion.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
Caesar-Gaelic wars-from time he wrote to closest manuscript 1000 years.


Are you implying that the first published accounts of Caesar's Gallic Wars (note spelling) was first published 1,000 years after he documented them?

The notes he took were published as 7 books while he was alive and an 8th shortly after his death.




edit on 4-9-2013 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
Caesar-Gaelic wars-from time he wrote to closest manuscript 1000 years.


Are you implying that the first published accounts of Caesar's Gallic Wars (note spelling) was first published 1,000 years after he documented them?

The notes he took were published as 7 books while he was alive and an 8th shortly after his death.




edit on 4-9-2013 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer


No I am saying that we do not have those first 7 or 8 books. We have copies of those books and the earliest copies we have are 1000 years after he wrote it.


The book was for a time lost, but was rediscovered in Italian city archives in the Middle Ages. The oldest known manuscripts of the commentaries date to the tenth century AD. Parts of the book have remained lost though, with at least sixteen passages known to be missing.[10] Given its much shorter length when compared to Caesar's other works, and its abrupt ending, it is possible that he never finished the work, or that a significant part may still be missing.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 




Homer's was written as fiction the Bible was written from people in that day about the events happening in that day, not as a myth or fairy tale.


I do think that the story of Jesus, his virgin birth and narrow escape of death, as prophesied, the 3 wise men and the star, the miracles, the story of his "Vision Quest" and meeting Satan in the desert, his death and resurrection......all meant to be seen as an allegorical myth. It was never meant to be taken literally, in my opinion.


The star of Bethlehem my friend that was very possibly a real astronomical event. More proof that God uses the stars as signs of his plans, and why I believe the Blood Moons are omens of something big.


Again only posting in case your interested dont have to watch it.






posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
No I am saying that we do not have those first 7 or 8 books. We have copies of those books and the earliest copies we have are 1000 years after he wrote it.


The book was for a time lost, but was rediscovered in Italian city archives in the Middle Ages. The oldest known manuscripts of the commentaries date to the tenth century AD. Parts of the book have remained lost though, with at least sixteen passages known to be missing.[10] Given its much shorter length when compared to Caesar's other works, and its abrupt ending, it is possible that he never finished the work, or that a significant part may still be missing.


en.wikipedia.org...


The book you are sourcing as your evidence is Caesar's Civil War, not the Gallic Wars. The latter book has been available from prior to his death and was the reason I asked my question.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


No is not and to be fair is highly debatable, only the faithful and religious follower will trust the worlds of other men when it comes to the bible, sorry but religious propaganda always claim to be 100 percent right backed by God.




posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 



Homer's was written as fiction...

Was it? As I said, Troy was/is a real city. Does that not add just as much validity to his account, as the writers of the bible using similar factual places and names?



Why wouldn't scholars have pointed out all the lies in their teachings? If Jesus wasn''t doing all those thing these people were writing about and telling people about why don't we have evidence of someone saying.

Why don't we have evidence from Homer's time telling us what a crackpot the guy was? Or from all the other religions telling these people were all nutcases?



Ya'll are not putting the Bible into the times it was written and logically thinking about how people would react if what they were saying were lies.

I think we are. I think we are looking at it objectively. Something Christians are not capable of doing, as a whole. I know. I was one. My objectivity was near non-existent until I started asking myself the questions I didn't want to hear, or think about.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
No I am saying that we do not have those first 7 or 8 books. We have copies of those books and the earliest copies we have are 1000 years after he wrote it.


The book was for a time lost, but was rediscovered in Italian city archives in the Middle Ages. The oldest known manuscripts of the commentaries date to the tenth century AD. Parts of the book have remained lost though, with at least sixteen passages known to be missing.[10] Given its much shorter length when compared to Caesar's other works, and its abrupt ending, it is possible that he never finished the work, or that a significant part may still be missing.


en.wikipedia.org...


The book you are sourcing as your evidence is Caesar's Civil War, not the Gallic Wars. The latter book has been available from prior to his death and was the reason I asked my question.



The primary historical source for the Gallic Wars is Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico in Latin, which is one of the best surviving examples of unadorned Latin prose.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 



Homer's was written as fiction...

Was it? As I said, Troy was/is a real city. Does that not add just as much validity to his account, as the writers of the bible using similar factual places and names?



Why wouldn't scholars have pointed out all the lies in their teachings? If Jesus wasn''t doing all those thing these people were writing about and telling people about why don't we have evidence of someone saying.

Why don't we have evidence from Homer's time telling us what a crackpot the guy was? Or from all the other religions telling these people were all nutcases?



Ya'll are not putting the Bible into the times it was written and logically thinking about how people would react if what they were saying were lies.

I think we are. I think we are looking at it objectively. Something Christians are not capable of doing, as a whole. I know. I was one. My objectivity was near non-existent until I started asking myself the questions I didn't want to hear, or think about.


I can't argue with ignorance my friend. People like you its just easier to agree to disagree.
edit on 4-9-2013 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   


A year after something is written or even 10 years people could have most likely looked at the originals....
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Face Palm

You were not paying attention were you my friend ? If you were then you would probably not have responded in that manner.

If you want to watch a whole debate then don't be so bloody lazy and do your own homework.
If as you claim Bart Ehrman has nothing but opinions then what the hell do you call any explanation of any past event ?
Do you get up early to practice kicking yourself in the balls ?

And just because I can and just for you -




posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ChristianJihad
 


Ehrman in the debate constantly says things like, "How do we know that the Gospels weren't changed before they were written down?" There is no evidence that they have been changed? 99.5% of the Greek manuscripts are spot on and the .5% is attributed to mistakes made while copying. None of these are doctrinal changes. Ehrman does not give the writers of the Bible the same privileges he would give other writers and doesn't take into account that if all of these have been changed what has happened to say Gallic wars all the writings by Tacitus. You just aren't grasping the concept of the OP and neither does Ehrman maybe he should have a look.

All the things he is saying could have happened to the New Testament could have happened to any ancient historical text, luckily the Bible has enough manuscripts for us to weed out any mistakes unlike most ancient documents ...this is my point....
edit on 4-9-2013 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
The Bible is like Homer's Illiad. Yes, it contains stories about historical events, but those events are seen through the eyes of those who believe everything was dictated by the will of otherworldly beings, so the storytelling is a bit skewed. It doesn't mean there isn't truth there, but you have to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Allegedly, we found Soddam and Gamorah. Allegedly, we found Troy. That still doesn't mean a bunch of angels were raped, or that a guy ticked off a goddess.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 



I can't argue with ignorance my friend. People like you its just easier to agree to disagree.

Ignorant? No. Just not looking to confirm my preconceived notions and bias toward what I want to believe. I've been on both sides of the fence. I was a preaching, teaching, witnessing, Christian for decades. I studied my bible, and its origins. You aren't talking to someone who is ignorant of the bible, and Christian doctrines. Or its history. The bible's historical accuracy is just as questionable as any other document out there. You can dig all day long for only those things that support your beliefs, but that doesn't make them true.

I can respect a man/woman who lives the Christian life by faith, but not one who consistently tries to shove it down my throat as fact and truth. There is no proof. There is only faith. The sooner you figure that out, the better off you'll be.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 




99.5% of the Greek manuscripts are spot on and the .5% is attributed to mistakes made while copying.


Spot on? In what regard?


THE DATE

According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.

Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later. However, the literal meaning is "this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor ..." In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod's death.



THE PLACE

Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Matthew quotes Micah 5:2 to show that this was in fulfillment of prophecy. Actually, Matthew misquotes Micah (compare Micah 5:2 to Matthew 2:6). Although this misquote is rather insignificant, Matthew's poor understanding of Hebrew will have great significance later in his gospel.

Luke has Mary and Joseph travelling from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:4). Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only because they were afraid to return to Judea (Matthew 2:21-23).


New Testament Contradictions



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Only Matthew and Luke recorded the events of the Lord’s birth. Three rulers whose terms of office are recorded in history help us pin down the approximate date. King Herod (the Great) reigned in Judea from 37 BC until his death in 4 BC. Then his son Archelaus took over and reigned from 4 BC- 6 AD. Quirinius was the governor of Syria and held office for two terms, 6-4 BC and 6-9 AD. (Caesar Augustus reigned in Rome from 31 BC to 14 AD, from well before the birth to well afterward.) According to Luke 2:2 Quirinius ordered the census that took Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem. Matt. 2:1-2 tells of the Magi arriving and asking Herod about the Lord’s birth. An angel warned Joseph to take his family and flee to Egypt because Herod wanted to kill the baby. (Matt. 2:13) Since Herod died in 4 BC and in his first term Quirinius was only governor between 6-4 BC that’s the maximum window of time in which the Lord could have been born. Luke 2:22 says that when Joseph brought his family back from Egypt, he heard that Herod’s son Archelaus was reigning. That confirms the census had to have occurred during Quirinius’ first term, and that Herod the Great was King at the time of His birth. No one knows how long after the Lord’s birth the Magi arrived or how long the family was in Egypt. But both gospels agree that Jesus had to have been born in Bethlehem, visited by the Magi, and taken to Egypt, all in the period between 6 and 4 BC
reply to post by windword
 


Already had that question myself. I have three other places that agree, you are tak



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb

The primary historical source for the Gallic Wars is Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico in Latin, which is one of the best surviving examples of unadorned Latin prose.


en.wikipedia.org...


Which is exactly what said. Your previous link was to the Commentarii de Bello Civi which is the civil wars, not the Gallic Wars. That book has been available since Caesar was alive with the exception of the 8th book. You are confusing two different books.



edit on 4-9-2013 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 



I can't argue with ignorance my friend. People like you its just easier to agree to disagree.

Ignorant? No. Just not looking to confirm my preconceived notions and bias toward what I want to believe. I've been on both sides of the fence. I was a preaching, teaching, witnessing, Christian for decades. I studied my bible, and its origins. You aren't talking to someone who is ignorant of the bible, and Christian doctrines. Or its history. The bible's historical accuracy is just as questionable as any other document out there. You can dig all day long for only those things that support your beliefs, but that doesn't make them true.

I can respect a man/woman who lives the Christian life by faith, but not one who consistently tries to shove it down my throat as fact and truth. There is no proof. There is only faith. The sooner you figure that out, the better off you'll be.

[/quote

Prophecy is proof. Manuscript evidence is proof of accuracy to the original. Eye witness accounts tell us that it actually happened it that day. These are logical evidences if you cannot accept them then I can accept that. No one is asking to look at my threads.



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



The difficulties this text raises can be initially summarized and then discussed along the following two lines:6 (1) There is no record nor apparent possibility of a census of the kind Luke describes; (2) There is no record that Quirinius was governor of Syria at the time Luke describes.

Luke’s description of the census is difficult for three reasons. First, there is no record of a singular, empire-wide census instituted by Augustus.7 Second, a Roman census would have required Joseph to register not at his ancestral home in Bethlehem but in the principal city of his “taxation district,”8 presumably somewhere in Galilee. (Not to mention, Mary would not have been obliged to go with him.9) Third, Roman censuses were not administered in client kingdoms, such as Herod’s was.10

Further, Quirinius’s involvement with such a census is difficult for two reasons. First, Luke describes Jesus’ birth and this census as taking place during Herod the Great’s reign (1:5; cf. Matt 2:1)—a reign11 ended by Herod’s death in March/April of 4 B.C. Second, Luke describes both events as also taking place during the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria. The juxtaposition of these two details “has caused,” as Schürer notes, “the greatest difficulties even to the defenders of Luke,”12 for Syrian gubernatorial records indicate that Quirinius was not governor during this time.


www.biblearchaeology.org...






top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join