Following on from yesterday and why i think the Bible is a reliable historical document (if nothing else)...
Accusation – It’s been “lost” in Translations.
The fact of the matter is that most Bibles available today are taken directly from the original languages – Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.
Our knowledge of these languages is getting more and more precise which means the translations are getting more accurate, not less. We haven't just received copies of the previous translation from English.
But, back to history... How does the Bible stack up against other credible historical documents?
Plato lived around 427-347BC and the earliest recordings of his teachings are from around 900AD, leaving a gap of about 1,200 years. Of these teachings, we have only 7 manuscripts.
Herodotus lived around 480-425BC and the earliest copy of his histories are from around 900AD, leaving a gap of about 1,300 years. We only have 8 copies of these manuscripts.
Catch the trend?
Caesar? Lived - 100-44BC, Earliest recordings - 900AD, Gap - 1,000 years, 10 Copies
Aristotle? Lived - 384-322BC, Earliest recordings - 100AD, Gap - 500 years, 49 Copies
Homers' Iliad (the most "reliable document in antiquity") - Written - 900BC, Oldest Copy - 400BC, Gap - 500 years, 643 Copies
The Bible?
Old Testament - Written - 1500-400BC, Oldest copy pre 1947 - 900AD, Gap - 1,500 years....
UNTIL
1947… The Dead Sea Scrolls… Copied - 100BC, Gap - 300 years
When they compared the Dead Sea Scrolls to the earliest copies of the Old Testament, they were in the order of 99.5% identical.
New Testament - Written - 45-100AD, Earliest recording - 125AD, Gap - 25-50 years, Copies - 24,000+ (including 5,000+ in Greek)
Why do i trust that the Bible hasn't been changed throughout history?
Overwhelming manuscript evidence that is unrivaled. If you doubt the accuracy of the Bible, then you need to cast doubt on all antiquity...
Overwhelming manuscript evidence that is unrivaled. If you doubt the accuracy of the Bible, then you need to cast doubt on all antiquity...
ReplyDeleteYou mean of course that the words written in our copies accurately reproduce the words written in the original writing.
Is your theory able to distinguish between
a. the accuracy with which a text is reproduced, and
b. the factual accuracy of the claims in the text?
--------------------
New Testament - Written - 45-100AD, Earliest recording - 125AD, Gap - 25-50 years,
On what factual basis do you know the date of the hypothetical original writings?
Can you refer me please to the manuscript and date of the earliest complete copy of
Mk?
Mt?
Lk?
Jn?
--------------------
You know of course that the gospel writers were each serial liars. I have in mind their pretense of reporting the actual words people spoke. This is of course impossible. Thus the only reasonable explanation of gospel quotations is that the gospel writers got their "quotations" by making them up, then .... our gospel writers made stuff up. Just made it up. And it is not true the gospels are historical, not in the sense that the sayings and events we read about in them actually happened.
Bino Bolumai
/ In Bino Veritas >
At the moment i've just been dealing wih the Bible, particularly the New Testament, as a historical document and it stacks up really well.
ReplyDeleteAs for old manuscripts... check out... http://www.carm.org/questions/about-bible/manuscript-evidence-superior-new-testament-reliability
But please... stick with me, i'm still making my case, with my next point deals with accuracy.
And don't forget, the gospels were written within a generation of the life of Jesus (with the gospel of Mak written around 60AD). Each gospel is either written by an eyewitness or by someone close to an eyewitness.
If they were full of garbage, people would have known.
But... stick with me... i think i've still got four points to go...