26 Apr '13 20:34>
Originally posted by RJHindsRare moment: G75 tag-teaming with RJ about the Bible's reliability.
You will have to do the verifying, if you want to know the truth, which I don't think you are really interested in learning.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo before I go any farther are you speaking of religious documents or the Bible? I'm not referring to anything written or believed by any religion at this moment, even mine. This is strickly about the Bible's being right or wrong....
I didn't give any. The main test it fails is that it is in part written as a religious document which makes extraordinary claims, and in general I do not treat religious documents as reliable sources of information. That is not to say I ignore them altogether, but I require an extra level of confirmation when I know that the writer of a document has motives other than recounting history.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou say, "I require an extra level of confirmation when I know that the writer of a document has motives other than recounting history."
I didn't give any. The main test it fails is that it is in part written as a religious document which makes extraordinary claims, and in general I do not treat religious documents as reliable sources of information. That is not to say I ignore them altogether, but I require an extra level of confirmation when I know that the writer of a document has motives other than recounting history.
Originally posted by checkbaiterThanks...good stuff.
Here is a sample of the "New Testament Documents " by F.F.Bruce...very compelling stuff....
The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which noone dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authentici ...[text shortened]... st seven chapters.'
http://www.bible.ca/b-new-testament-documents-f-f-bruce-ch2.htm
Originally posted by galveston75The Bible is a collection of books, many of which are religious documents.
So before I go any farther are you speaking of religious documents or the Bible? I'm not referring to anything written or believed by any religion at this moment, even mine. This is strickly about the Bible's being right or wrong....
Originally posted by checkbaiterI think you are quite seriously confused about what is under discussion. I do not dispute the authenticity of the New Testament documents. I do not dispute that they were written within a few hundred years of when Jesus supposedly lived. I dispute that their contents accurately describe history or the universe.
The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which noone dreams of questioning.
Originally posted by twhiteheadA few hundred year? They were all written within that same century Jesus actually lived, numbnuts.
I think you are quite seriously confused about what is under discussion. I do not dispute the authenticity of the New Testament documents. I do not dispute that they were written within a few hundred years of when Jesus supposedly lived. I dispute that their contents accurately describe history or the universe.
Originally posted by KeplerIt is true that the writers did not date their New testament works, however, a good estimate can be determined through the known dates of other things relating to that time period.
Really? Go on, show us the frontispiece with the publication date on it. What? You can't? How do you know when they were written then?