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

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

I'm going to leave you with this link OP. I can't take credit for it, though. Wandering Scribe posted it in another thread. Enjoy.

Failed Biblical Prophecies

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

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

My bad to many people to respond to, but your still incorrect the earliest manuscripts are from the 9th century some 900 years after Caesar.

For Caesar’s Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 B.C.) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar’s day.—F.F. Bruce

This brief survey of the textual background to Caesar’s Gallic War puts some flesh on the bones of F.F. Bruce’s brief statement. Bruce’s reasoning remains as valid today. Virginia Brown’s work is an excellent authority to cite when we point out the (approximate) 900 year gap between the date of publication and the first extant manuscripts.

www.timmitchell.fr...

www.icr.org...

and many more places agree that it was close to 1000 years after Caesars death.

I would like to add that I came across some new research a second ago that says Homer's now has 1,757 manuscripts, but it still mentions that it is dwarfed by the NT that the NT stands in a class of its own.

www.clayjones.net...

Not sure how accurate the info is but just wanted people to be aware that there has been some new findings supposedly.

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

I'm going to leave you with this link OP. I can't take credit for it, though. Wandering Scribe posted it in another thread. Enjoy.

Failed Biblical Prophecies

This link is stupid. I have seen it numerous times. The writers have no understanding of biblical theology, and don't even reference sources that agree with their point of view.... so yeah

www.jpost.com...

OH we are going to attack Syria? No way? Isaiah 17 is sneaking in boys and girls don't say God didn't warn you, for you should learn from the Fig Tree.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
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)

Wow, that comment says much more about you than anything/one else. Chill out.

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
This link is stupid. I have seen it numerous times. The writers have no understanding of biblical theology, and don't even reference sources that agree with their point of view.... so yeah

Well, they are biblical prophecies so, the source is the bible.

So, if the bible says x is going to happen and it doesn't then it's a failed prophecy.

Doesn't get much simpler than that.

The fallacy here is that Christianity today can not even agree what goes in the The New Testament. The first attempt to create it was in 300 and it was nothing like what is in it today. Many versions have with different books have been added or subtracted over the years. Books once important are tossed later as no longer canon while others added. Trying to prove the Bible as accurate is a fools errand because it suppose to be a matter of faith and not fact.

Originally posted by MrSpad
The fallacy here is that Christianity today can not even agree what goes in the The New Testament. The first attempt to create it was in 300 and it was nothing like what is in it today. Many versions have with different books have been added or subtracted over the years. Books once important are tossed later as no longer canon while others added. Trying to prove the Bible as accurate is a fools errand because it suppose to be a matter of faith and not fact.

Proof of this, or are you just speculating as everyone else is?

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
My bad to many people to respond to, but your still incorrect the earliest manuscripts are from the 9th century some 900 years after Caesar.

For Caesar’s Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 B.C.) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar’s day.—F.F. Bruce

This brief survey of the textual background to Caesar’s Gallic War puts some flesh on the bones of F.F. Bruce’s brief statement. Bruce’s reasoning remains as valid today. Virginia Brown’s work is an excellent authority to cite when we point out the (approximate) 900 year gap between the date of publication and the first extant manuscripts.

www.timmitchell.fr...

www.icr.org...

Both of the sources are Chirstian-leaning and are arguing the same point that you are trying to make. The first source only references the second source and adds no further information. They both neglect that a 'manuscript' is only a handwritten copy of what was more commonly used at the time which was a parchment palimpsest or scroll. These, while fragile, were what would have been more typically available to contemporaries of Caesar and those after him until the codex became more popular which inturn was replaced by the illuminated manuscript.

Addtionally, there are contemporaries of Caesar who referenced his works in their own, among them were; Paterculus, Ovid, Virgil, Cicero, Nepos, Catullus and Pollio, founder of Rome's first public library. I think you are getting hung up on the word 'manuscript' when it really is not entirely relevant to proving a theory.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
This link is stupid. I have seen it numerous times. The writers have no understanding of biblical theology, and don't even reference sources that agree with their point of view.... so yeah

Well, they are biblical prophecies so, the source is the bible.

So, if the bible says x is going to happen and it doesn't then it's a failed prophecy.

Doesn't get much simpler than that.

edit on 4-9-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Please at least look into those prophecies yourself and form your own opinion. Who ever wrote that on wiki is uneducated. The destruction of Tyre was not a failed prophecy, and is easy to see. If you cannot see that one then you are choosing to be blind to it, and there is nothing I can do you are in Gods hands.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

The bit of text that stands out to me is "thou shalt be built no more" yet there it stands.

I'd call that a fail.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
My bad to many people to respond to, but your still incorrect the earliest manuscripts are from the 9th century some 900 years after Caesar.

For Caesar’s Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 B.C.) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar’s day.—F.F. Bruce

This brief survey of the textual background to Caesar’s Gallic War puts some flesh on the bones of F.F. Bruce’s brief statement. Bruce’s reasoning remains as valid today. Virginia Brown’s work is an excellent authority to cite when we point out the (approximate) 900 year gap between the date of publication and the first extant manuscripts.

www.timmitchell.fr...

www.icr.org...

Both of the sources are Chirstian-leaning and are arguing the same point that you are trying to make. The first source only references the second source and adds no further information. They both neglect that a 'manuscript' is only a handwritten copy of what was more commonly used at the time which was a parchment palimpsest or scroll. These, while fragile, were what would have been more typically available to contemporaries of Caesar and those after him until the codex became more popular which inturn was replaced by the illuminated manuscript.

Addtionally, there are contemporaries of Caesar who referenced his works in their own, among them were; Paterculus, Ovid, Virgil, Cicero, Nepos, Catullus and Pollio, founder of Rome's first public library. I think you are getting hung up on the word 'manuscript' when it really is not entirely relevant to proving a theory.

Show me where I can find proof of originals from the time of Caesars life, and I'll stop arguing that one. I;ve said numerous times the only point I wanted to make is that it is accurate to the original books of the NT. You can recreate almost all of the NT from quotes of the early church fathers...I mean I do not believe that the other ancient writings are inaccurate...I am saying that if you believe the NT is inaccurate then you must use the same are way off. That is the point of this thread.

And if it is not hand written, I highly doubt Caesar typed it up before the common era....

And for all you Ehrman fans

www.cbn.com...

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

The bit of text that stands out to me is "thou shalt be built no more" yet there it stands.

I'd call that a fail.

edit on 4-9-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Lol that is not the same city of Tyre, it is only the same in name not location.

When Alexander built his causeway out to the island fortress of Tyre in order to destroy it, he used every scrap from the ruins of the mainland part of the city that had been destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. The location was so thoroughly scavenged that for centuries no one knew the exact location of the former city. The current Lebanese City of Tyre bears the same name but it’s not the same city as its Phoenician predecessor. A similar situation exists with Jericho. When Joshua destroyed the original city, he pronounced a curse on anyone who tried to rebuild it (Joshua 6:26-27). Today there’s a city called Jericho in the Palestinian territory, but the only thing it has in common with the original one is the name.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

Yeah, right.

The present-day city of Tyre covers a large part of the original island and has expanded onto and covers most of the causeway, which had increased greatly in width over the centuries because of extensive silt depositions on either side. The part of the original island that is not covered by the modern city of Tyre consists mostly of an archaeological site showcasing remains of the city from ancient times.

Looks like someone is splitting hairs to keep the prophesy out of the fail bin.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Yeah, right.

The present-day city of Tyre covers a large part of the original island and has expanded onto and covers most of the causeway, which had increased greatly in width over the centuries because of extensive silt depositions on either side. The part of the original island that is not covered by the modern city of Tyre consists mostly of an archaeological site showcasing remains of the city from ancient times.

Looks like someone is splitting hairs to keep the prophesy out of the fail bin.

www.youtube.com...

He explains it pretty decently

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
He explains it pretty decently

Because he splits hairs to your liking. Here is a googlemaps shot of tyre. Doesn't look like bare rock to me.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
He explains it pretty decently

Because he splits hairs to your liking. Here is a googlemaps shot of tyre. Doesn't look like bare rock to me.

Lol just agree to disagree i am not gonna argue prophecy on this thread. Its only point is to say the NT is accurate to the original.

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
i am not gonna argue prophecy on this thread.

You sure didn't have a problem with it when you thought you had something.

Accurate to the original does not equal historically accurate. Why did you ask those in your other thread to check this one out if there wasn't going to any proof here either?

The NT is far from being historically accurate. It is a work of historical fiction.

Did Herod slaughter the innocents?


Another prophecy related to the birth of Jesus is the claim that the Messiah would be born at a time when King Herod was killing children. Only the gospel of Matthew (2:16-18) makes this claim, quoting a prophecy of Jeremiah (31:15) which states that "A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; and she refused to be comforted, because they were no more." There are two problems with this alleged messianic prophecy: it is not a prophecy about children being killed and it is quite doubtful that there ever was such a slaughter of innocents by Herod. "Rachel weeping for her children" refers to the mother of Joseph and Benjamin (and wife of Jacob) weeping about her children taken captive to Egypt. In context, the verse is about the Babylonian captivity, which its author witnessed. Subsequent verses speak of the children being returned, and thus it refers to captivity rather than murder. The slaughter by Herod is also in doubt because the writer of Matthew is the only person who has noted such an event. Flavius Josephus, who carefully chronicled Herod's abuses, makes no mention of it.

There was no Roman census!

When was Jesus born? According to Luke, it was during the reign of the Roman governor Quirinius, during a census ordered by Augustus throughout the whole world.(9) According to both Luke and Matthew it was also during the reign of king Herod "the Great."(10) The problem is that Herod died in 4 B.C.E., and this was fully ten years before Quirinius' census. Furthermore, during Herod's reign, no Roman census could have been held in his territory, which included both Judaea and Galilee, the locations of both Bethlehem and Nazareth.(11) Herod would have collected his own taxes, and given tribute to the Romans. Lastly, the existence of a census throughout the whole empire is contrary to the practice of the Romans, who collected taxes province by province, often subcontracting the process to "publicans."

Source

Christians will make excuses for these inaccuracies all day, but the fact still remains, the NT is NOT historically accurate when you look at it objectively.