Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[Mojo]

Using the Laws of physics, I prophecize that if you jump off a 30 story building you will die.

Gravity is only a theory.

 

[Lothian]

I went around to the theology site.
Can you believe it?
Sir William Ramsay's opinion of Luke's accuracy is actually considered proof of said accuracy.

Notwithstanding the fact that Ramsay's opinion is somewhat outdated, they distort what he said to reach a false conclusion.

Details like this led William Ramsay (mentioned above) to say, "Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness," and "Luke is an historian of the first rank. . . . [He] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."9 The bottom line is that Luke can be trusted. Since he has been confirmed independently on so many testable points, there's every reason to believe he's telling the truth elsewhere.

Ramsay's bottom line was that there is no evidence for the essential parts of the bible, the supernatural bits. You need a leap of faith to believe those parts as history and evidence does not take you there.

 

[pakeha]

I quite agree with you, Lothian. In fact, this misrepresentation of that particular author inspires a total lack of confidence in the conclusions of these writers.
That the misrepresentation is perpetrated over and over again is something I find shocking.
Anyway.

Reposting on DOC's request:

Much has been said about Luke's excellence as an historian. Luke did indeed emulate the models of historical narrative which were current in his day. But to claim that Luke is a consummate historian by modern standards--as many evangelicals do--is a position which cannot be maintained. In a letter to me, F. F. Bruce concedes that conservative apologists have been too eager to declare Luke's inerrancy. So eager was W. M. Ramsey to prove Luke correct about the enrollment in Bethlehem that he, according to Bruce, "unwisely damaged his well-founded reputation as a very considerable scholar." In his Anchor Bible commentary Catholic scholar J. A. Fitzmyer lists other historical mistakes in Luke's writing and offers the most definitive argument against Ramsey's claims about the famous Christmas census.

This is the opening paragraph of a most revealing article you'll find here:
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cach...+Census+papyrus+Luke&cd=7&hl=es&ct=clnk&gl=es

 

[DOC]

Well Jesus Christ was not invisible, and his words were recorded on 24,000 manuscripts compared to 7 manuscripts for Plato.

Gday,

The Book of Mormon is recorded on MILLIONS of copies.
Much more than the NT, so it must be much more true.

Manuscripts are hand written copies which was the only way to copy something before the invention of the printing press. The copies of the Book of Mormon were done on a printing press. And for the record there are many more copies of the bible then there are of the book of Mormon.

 

[wollery]

Manuscripts are hand written copies which was the only way to copy something before the invention of the printing press. The copies of the Book of Mormon were done on a printing press. And for the record there are many more copies of the bible then there are of the book of Mormon.

And waaay more copies of Quotations from Chairman Mao.

Did you have a point?

 

[Simon39759]

Only one thing wrong there. The she is a he!

Ahe, so far. But, don't forget my mighty powers of prophecy.
But I have said too much already, in time, all will be revealed.

 

[Simon39759]

Galatians 3:28

Even better. Thanks Fiona.
Yes, of course, I did not do a mistake, it was an allusion to Galatians. Of course, how could I mistake Amb's sex, I am a prophet.

 

[Simon39759]

Using the Laws of physics, I prophecize that if you jump off a 30 story building you will die.

Actually, it is not a prophecy but an educated guess based on previous knowledge of the laws of physics.
But it's an interesting comparizon, we know that it is possible to make prediction of outcomes based on natural laws, that's how science test itself, we know that people sometime make very sophisticated guess on to what the future holds based on trends and such, and sometime, they are right too.

You comparison implies that it is the same for the Bible, the prophecies would be educated guesses and prediction. But that'd pretty much invalid your point of it being a supernatural achievement and the proof of the Godly origin of the Bible...

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Even better. Thanks Fiona.
Yes, of course, I did not do a mistake, it was an allusion to Galatians. Of course, how could I mistake Amb's sex, I am a prophet.

Well, obviously, it must be Amb who's confused about her sex.


(Sorry, Amb, couldn't resist the setup)

 

[paximperium]

Manuscripts are hand written copies which was the only way to copy something before the invention of the printing press. The copies of the Book of Mormon were done on a printing press.

Therefore the Book of Mormon has less chance of being mistakenly copied and "edited" than the Bible. The Book of Mormon is most definitely closer to the original than the Bible.

Any copies of the New Testament from the 1st century again?

 

[joobz]

Manuscripts are hand written copies which was the only way to copy something before the invention of the printing press. The copies of the Book of Mormon were done on a printing press. And for the record there are many more copies of the bible then there are of the book of Mormon.

This is a stupid, juvinile argument.

 

[DOC]

Any copies of the New Testament from the 1st century again?

You know (or you should know) that the earliest manuscripts of the NT are much closer to the original writings than almost all other ancient writings. So what is the point of your question?

 

[DOC]

This is a stupid, juvinile argument.

Another no explanation post.

 

[Elizabeth I]

You know (or you should know) that the earliest manuscripts of the NT are much closer to the original writings than almost all other ancient writings. So what is the point of your question?

Huh? What does this even mean?

 

[DOC]

Therefore the Book of Mormon has less chance of being mistakenly copied and "edited" than the Bible. The Book of Mormon is most definitely closer to the original than the Bible.

That's what happens when your religion is founded 1800 years after the original (which was founded before the invention of paper or the printing press).

And it has already been pointed out that because of the large number of manuscripts (over 5000 in Greek) which can be crossed checked, the text of the Bible is very accurate to the original and none of any possible errors deal with major dogma.

 

[DOC]

Huh? What does this even mean?

For example the earliest manuscript we have of Plato is dated over 800 years after the original writings. Whereas the earliest manuscript of a New Testament writing is under 100 years after the original.

 

[DOC]

What tomb?
Paul never mentioned a tomb.
Nor did any of the NT epistles.
No Christian writer shows any knowledge of the empty tomb until early-mid 2nd century.

Now, there are 4 alleged 'tombs' of Jesus - two in Jerusalem.

Paul mentions Jesus was risen from the dead, and Matthew mentions Jesus was placed in a tomb in Mat 27:60. Also Luke 24:2 mentions Jesus was placed in a Sepulcher (which can be a tomb) with a large stone rolled over the entrance.

And your statement about early-mid 2nd century is false.

I don't know what your last sentence means.

 

[joobz]

Another no explanation post.

It's been explained multiple times. Appealling to numbers is a fallacy.
You haven't been able to defend any of the original arguments, and all you do is repeat them.

Therefore, until you post something worthy of an more detailed response, i will reply with my honest, albeit brief, assessment.

In this case, it was stupid and juvenile.

 

[joobz]

You know (or you should know) that the earliest manuscripts of the NT are much closer to the original writings than almost all other ancient writings. So what is the point of your question?

HOw are yo making this judgement? How can anyone make this comparison.

I mean, given the fact that we don't have COPIES of the original text, How can you possibly make this statement.

 

[Lothian]

HOw are yo making this judgement? How can anyone make this comparison.

I mean, given the fact that we don't have COPIES of the original text, How can you possibly make this statement.

Easy