[quote]
doogie wrote:
He’s a Christian and goes there. That’s strange.
Nate Dogg wrote:
A true Christian will not shield himself from other religions or beliefs. It would be absurd to not know anything else. If a Christian is exposed to other religions or beliefs and is afraid that it may change their belief, then their faith is not strong enough to begin with.
A true Christian would study those beliefs so he/she can be educated in what others believe/think. A true Christian will put faith in God and know that if he does study other religions or beliefs, he will still remain a Christian and continue his faith in Christ. He will not fall off the path or question his faith.[/quote]
That almost makes sense, if he went there with an open mind, actually investigating others’ beliefs and weighing them against his own. Either way it doesn’t have much to do with my response to Zeb. He said it’s more telling that I was there than edgecrusher being there.
Unless Zeb has recently adopted the beliefs of the Skopsty, clicking on that link says exactly the same thing about me as it does when anyone else (edgecrusher) clicks it.
[quote]doogie wrote:
I won’t address the ones that are claimed to be copyist errors (and I won’t go back and see how many you attributed to that), other than to ask how you can be sure of ANYTHING in the Bible if you can’t produce the originals and you admit there are errors in the copying of it?
Sure you have a lot of thousand and thousands of bits and pieces of old texts, but nothing close to being a single complete copy of ANY of the books in the Bible. You’ve played telegraph. You know how a message can’t even get passed around a room of 20 people without getting distorted.
Beyond that, how can you be sure that the books (errors and all) that have been included in the Bible are the CORRECT words of god? You know there were many other writings about Jesus and god from the same time period. How can you be sure that the group of people who sat around deciding which books to include (errors and all) chose the CORRECT books?
[/quote]
I will trust the textual critics on this one when they state that we are 99.9999% sure we have the full Bible.
the .0001% is because of those small copyist errors on the numbers.
You knew that though being an infidel.org person. I do respect the work they do though. I am a theologyweb.com person my self.
Well lets see what abbreviate means
Main Entry: ab?bre?vi?ate
Pronunciation: &-'brE-vE-"At
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -at?ed; -at?ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin abbreviatus, past participle of abbreviare – more at ABRIDGE
: to make briefer; especially : to reduce to a shorter form intended to stand for the whole
synonym see SHORTEN
ab?bre?vi?a?tor /-"A-t&r/ noun
So it is clear that I was stating the the short version would stand for the whole. I don’t call that pretending.
Since you honored us with a copy and paste approach I will offer a web link which explains what I said in a more detailed way.
and the last verse in context
He is basically saying that those who think really highly of them self, and trust in their own smarts will be ruined.
There is no attack on wisdom.
just about as certain as there are Hebrews that beleive they are descended from Abraham, and gasp would still share the same bloodline as Jesus.
The implication of the prophet is that even the children had become corrupted with the sins of their father(i.e. they are doing the same sins).
So the just punishment would come because the whole nation had become corrupted.
They don’t based on the previous link I posted.
As for the order of things. It doesn’t really matter unless you are a literalist, and a YEC.
I am neither so why should I go out of my way to describe an argument that would take me hours to explain the foundation of?
Why couldn’t shakespeare write in modern day english in a way that normal people in the 21st century can understand?
Because the message was meant to be for the people of that day. SO the “prophets” communicated to the people of their day.
You asked ho he died. I said one of them just gives more detail about how he died. He hung him self and his bowels fell out.
If you asked who bought the field in the first post sorry for not catching it. You did post alot of different things.
I didn’t expect it to be. I was implying I would need some time. I would also prefer a clean post since this one gets cluttered with our replies intermixing.
Why not? The hebrews don’t even pit Satan the way Christianity does.
given the light of what they think about Satan through their ancient writings I find this description very consistant. They view satan as an agent of God.
Christians view him only as the enemy of God. Combine the two and you get a dual agency.
And? At the bottom of my reply I explained this one. Joseph took on Mary’s heritage. So he had something similiar to dual citizenship, but with a parental meaning.
One set of questions at a time. Other wise this will become confusing, and time consuming.
Well we all believe Jesus is God, and if anybody saw Jesus than we would be violating that wouldn’t we. John who wrote that would be violating that too.
SO as I said no one can see Him in his full glory.
Please… it doesn’t matter why he did it?
reason is everything.
is it murder or self defense if a guy defends him self in his own home, and ends up killing an attacker?
You don’t know much about the hebrew culture do you?
Since we are taking OT hebrew documents, and comparing them with NT. THen you have to allow for a comparison in view.
your cursory interpretation is as bad as the KJV only crowd.
Who said God revealed everything? The only thing we say is that it is God’s revelation.
I don’t know who you hang out with, but no CHristian I know has ever claimed the Bible reveals everything to us. It only claims this is what GOd wanted to reveal to us.
I thought for sure you would no this theory. It is the sounding block of skeptics for trying to debunk the gospels.
Check out the link on proverbial sayings.
because dispensationalist didn’t come around until about two hundred years ago.
I can’t go back in time and correct the bad interpretation of some people.
The early church understood it. The modern church is the one that seems to be confused in some things.
Maybe Judah didn’t have the faith. maybe he didn’t make a real battle of it. It doesn’t say. It just say he didn’t defeat them.
It was a cultural thing.
The laws of Abraham’s day allowed for such things. In the Theocratic society that God formed in leviticus, the change was needed.
By the time Jesus came along the multiple wives seemed to disappear too.
Different question not related to the topic. so you need to ask it when these have been resolved.
You are as good as the kjv only crowd. You are even telling me that you understand what the greek word miseo means.
It means loss of love, and not the hate that you are trying to emphasize.
Focus on one subject and I will help you understand.
Because Matthew was a hebrew, and luke was a greek. different cultures, and different styles.
Some of those guys reach a level that it is no longer a proof think anymore. it is an opinion on what they have researched. These guys are splitting hairs over the smallest little detail.
guys like
Barker, carrwork, holding(although I don’t like his attitude most the time), and meyers are incredible thinkers.
[quote]mcloud10 wrote:
I am just saying the historocity of the Bible is very strong, and should not be cast about lightly. [/quote]
I would enjoy reading any information you have on the historicity of the Bible.
I don’t think anyone claims that NONE of the Bible has been shown to be historically accurate, but that provides no real proof of it’s supernatural claims. Does the historicity of the Da Vinci Code provide real proof of it’s assertions?
To all the Christians here:
I’m sure you are aware of the Easter challenge to Christians: "The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul’s tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.
Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture–it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?"
Easter is the single most important day in the history of the world from a Christian standpoint, yet the apostles couldn’t agree on the answer to these questions: Who were the women who went oto the tomb? Was the tomb open when the women arrived? Who was at the tomb when they arrived? After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear? Did the women tell what happened? Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples? How long did Jesus stay on earth after the coming back from the dead? Where did the ascension take place?
[quote]doogie wrote:
mcloud10 wrote:
I am just saying the historocity of the Bible is very strong, and should not be cast about lightly.
I would enjoy reading any information you have on the historicity of the Bible.
I don’t think anyone claims that NONE of the Bible has been shown to be historically accurate, but that provides no real proof of it’s supernatural claims. Does the historicity of the Da Vinci Code provide real proof of it’s assertions?
To all the Christians here:
I’m sure you are aware of the Easter challenge to Christians: "The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul’s tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.
Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture–it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?"
Easter is the single most important day in the history of the world from a Christian standpoint, yet the apostles couldn’t agree on the answer to these questions: Who were the women who went oto the tomb? Was the tomb open when the women arrived? Who was at the tomb when they arrived? After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear? Did the women tell what happened? Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples? How long did Jesus stay on earth after the coming back from the dead? Where did the ascension take place?
[/quote]
I suggest you hang out at theologyweb.com I consider this the Christian equiv. to infidels.org.
I know carrwork post there from time to time.
and tektonics.org for free information from a Christian perspective on these things
Hmmmm, somehow these “contradictions” look strangely familiar…
They sounded strangely familiar to you? I didn’t think you’re the type of guy be reading infidels.org That’s interesting.
[/quote]
So, as Christians we should be uninformed about what other people believe? hmmm… sounds like you’re reinforcing a stereotype…
[quote]
“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” II Tim 4:3
Wow. That explains the Christian rejection of the sound doctrines of science and their turning to myths instead. That is the only prophecy I’ve ever believed came true.[/quote]
“Sound doctrine” must be relative to you… there are many theories which also exist in science. You still have to maintain some level of faith in something to belive in it. It hasn’t yet been proven as absolute truth.
Also, although it never denies their humanity, when the bible refers to followers of Christ as Saints, not mere men.
Unless Zeb has recently adopted the beliefs of the Skopsty, clicking on that link says exactly the same thing about me as it does when anyone else (edgecrusher) clicks it.
[/quote]
[quote]mcloud10 wrote:
I think it is important to remember that the study of history, and the copying of history, is a flawed process by flawed individuals. If you say that the single most supported (historically and factually speaking) collection of texts in the history of the ancient writing cannot be trusted, then for what reason am I to believe that any of history actually took place? How much proof is there of the accuracy and realiability of the individuals who are accounted for in the Bible, compared to say, Ceaser Augustus? Not bashing any of the previous posters whatsoever, I am just saying the historocity of the Bible is very strong, and should not be cast about lightly. [/quote]
Agreed. It is interesting to note that when judged with the “reliability tests” that historians use to verify the authenticity of historical documents the new testament is about as good as it gets, and is way ahead of other documents about events/people occurring in the same period that we accept without questioning, such as Julius Caesar and the Roman Empire.
There are also many non-christian sources around the time of Jesus who verify that he did exist and was crucified.
Agreed. It is interesting to note that when judged with the “reliability tests” that historians use to verify the authenticity of historical documents the new testament is about as good as it gets, and is way ahead of other documents about events/people occurring in the same period that we accept without questioning, such as Julius Caesar and the Roman Empire.
[/quote]
That is utter crap, and you provide no evidence or sources.
[quote]
There are also many non-christian sources around the time of Jesus who verify that he did exist and was crucified.[/quote]
No there aren’t. List the sources that are “so many”. Christians say things like this but provide ZERO evidence. All you are doing is telling each other what you want to hear.
Agreed. It is interesting to note that when judged with the “reliability tests” that historians use to verify the authenticity of historical documents the new testament is about as good as it gets, and is way ahead of other documents about events/people occurring in the same period that we accept without questioning, such as Julius Caesar and the Roman Empire.
That is utter crap, and you provide no evidence or sources.
[/quote]
Courtesy of the beloved Charles Spurgeon:
Manuscript evidence for the New Testament
Any objective look at the evidence will quickly point out that the New Testament Scriptures were the most frequently copied books of the ancient world. There are presently over 5,300 known manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. In addition there are over 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts and over 9,300 copies of other early versions.
This gives us a total of over 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament that are known to exist today! No other book or document from the ancient world even remotely approaches these numbers. As a matter of fact, the closest competitor in all of ancient Greek and Latin literature is the Iliad by Homer which is attested to by 643 surviving manuscripts! More typical is Caesar’s Gallic Wars which is attested to by 10 surviving manuscripts, the Roman history of Livy by 20, and the history of Herodotus by 8.
Even if we lacked the abundant manuscript evidence, the New Testament would also be preserved in the writings of the early church Fathers. One scholar (Sir David Dalrymple) engaged in a diligent study of the Scripture quotations by the early church Fathers and came to this conclusion:
…as I possessed all the existing works of the Fathers of the second and third centuries, I commenced to search, and up to this time I have found the entire New Testament, except eleven verses.
In addition to the sheer numerical evidence, we must take into account the interval between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscript. The New Testament was composed between the years of 40-100 A.D. The earliest fragment found (the John Rylands’ papyrus - a fragment of the gospel of John) dates from approximately A.D. 130. The earliest complete manuscripts of the New Testament (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) are dated to the 4th Century.
Therefore, we have an interval of less than 50 years between the composition of the New Testament and partial manuscript copies of it, and an interval of less than 300 years between its composition and complete manuscript copies of it. Although this sounds like a considerable interval, it turns out to be remarkably small in comparison to other works of antiquity.
The Iliad was composed around 900 B.C. and the earliest extant copy dates to about 400 B.C. (an interval of 500 years). Caesar wrote in the range of 100-44 B.C. and the earliest copy of his work dates from A.D. 900 (an interval of approximately 1000 years). Herodotus wrote in the range of 480-425 B.C. and the earliest copy of his work dates from A.D. 900 (an interval of approximately 1300 years).
In spite of these numbers, no classical scholar would dare to question the authenticity of Homer, Caesar or Herodotus. Yet the Bible, with its overwhelming manuscript attestation, is constantly questioned and attacked!
Because of the remarkable number of existing manuscripts, the accuracy of the New Testament text is virtually assured. One scholar has calculated that of the approximately 20,000 lines of the New Testament, only about 40 lines (approximately 400 words) are seriously disputed by textual critics (less than 1%).
In comparison, 764 of the Iliad’s approximately 15,600 lines are in doubt (5%). The Mahabharata, the national epic of India, has approximately 26,000 of 250,000 lines in doubt (10%).
It is also important to note that the vast majority of the New Testament’s disputed readings consist of trivial differences in spelling or style and not one of them affects a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. In summation, we quote one of the greatest authorities in New Testament textual criticism.
One word of warning, already referred to, must be emphasized in conclusion. No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading…
It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is this the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities.
This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.
[quote]doogie wrote:
There are also many non-christian sources around the time of Jesus who verify that he did exist and was crucified.
No there aren’t. List the sources that are “so many”. Christians say things like this but provide ZERO evidence. All you are doing is telling each other what you want to hear.
[/quote]
There are external sources, the most notable being Flavius Josephus, a first century Jewish historian who was not a follower of Christ as well as
Roman historian Suetonius (70 A.D. to 160 A.D.) who was also not a Christian.
Are you suggesting that Jesus did not exist and was not crucified? You do realize that that is on the very fringes among secular historians right?
[quote]JPBear wrote:
doogie wrote:
There are also many non-christian sources around the time of Jesus who verify that he did exist and was crucified.
No there aren’t. List the sources that are “so many”. Christians say things like this but provide ZERO evidence. All you are doing is telling each other what you want to hear.
There are external sources, the most notable being Flavius Josephus, a first century Jewish historian who was not a follower of Christ as well as
Roman historian Suetonius (70 A.D. to 160 A.D.) who was also not a Christian.
Are you suggesting that Jesus did not exist and was not crucified? You do realize that that is on the very fringes among secular historians right?
[/quote]
Even the most conservative scholars agree that the Josephus “proof” in his Antiquities of the Jews was in fact a forgery inserted by the self-serving church historion Eusubius. The Suetonius source has been likewise debunked. But look up Philo-Jedaeus, though, and see what he has to about Jesus. Justus of Tiberius is also an interesting case. Let me know what you find.
[quote]JPBear wrote:
doogie wrote:
There are also many non-christian sources around the time of Jesus who verify that he did exist and was crucified.
No there aren’t. List the sources that are “so many”. Christians say things like this but provide ZERO evidence. All you are doing is telling each other what you want to hear.
There are external sources, the most notable being Flavius Josephus, a first century Jewish historian who was not a follower of Christ as well as
Roman historian Suetonius (70 A.D. to 160 A.D.) who was also not a Christian.
Are you suggesting that Jesus did not exist and was not crucified? You do realize that that is on the very fringes among secular historians right?
[/quote]
I already know what his answer will be concerning josephus.
I will however bring up tacitus as a reliable source.
Here are some neat scientific facts in the Bible (from wayofthemaster.com):
At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space: “He…hangs the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7).
The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: “It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth” (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world.
God told Job in 1500 B.C.: “Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?” (Job 38:35). The Bible here is making what appears to be a scientifically ludicrous statement?that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech.
But did you know that radio waves travel at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn’t discover this until 1864 when “British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing” (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia).
Job 38:19 asks, “Where is the way where light dwells?” Modern man has only recently discovered that light (electromagnetic radiation) has a “way,” traveling at 186,000 miles per second.
Science has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are received on earth as a high pitch. God mentioned this in Job 38:7: “When the morning stars sang together…”
Solomon described a “cycle” of air currents two thousand years before scientists “discovered” them. “The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits” (Ecclesiastes 1:6).
Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power, and motion. Genesis 1:1,2 revealed such truths to the Hebrews in 1450 B.C.: “In the beginning [time] God created [power] the heaven [space] and the earth [matter] . . . And the Spirit of God moved [motion] upon the face of the waters.” The first thing God tells man is that He controls of all aspects of the universe.
Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of invisible atoms. Here, Scripture tells us that the “things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” (Hebrews 11:3)
Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.
The great biological truth concerning the importance of blood in our body’s mechanism has been fully comprehended only in recent years. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were “bled,” and many died because of the practice. If you lose your blood, you lose your life. Yet Leviticus 17:11, written 3,000 years ago, declared that blood is the source of life: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood.”
Encyclopedia Britannica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death rate of women who gave birth in hospitals. As many as 30 percent died after giving birth. Semmelweis noted that doctors would examine the bodies of patients who died, then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next ward and examine expectant mothers.
This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown. Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped to 2 percent. Look at the specific instructions God gave His people for when they encounter disease: “And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself even days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean” (Leviticus 15:13).
Until recent years, doctors washed their hands in a bowl of water, leaving invisible germs on their hands. However, the Bible says specifically to wash hands under “running water.”
"During the devastating Black Death of the fourteenth century, patients who were sick or dead were kept in the same rooms as the rest of the family. People often wondered why the disease was affecting so many people at one time. They attributed these epidemics to ‘bad air’ or ‘evil spirits.’ However, careful attention to the medical commands of God as revealed in Leviticus would have saved untold millions of lives.
Arturo Castiglione wrote about the overwhelming importance of this biblical medical law: ‘The laws against leprosyin Leviticus 13 may be regarded as the first model of sanitary legislation’ (A History of Medicine)."
Luke 17:34-36 says the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same time.
Both of your assumptions about me are fairly correct. Contrary to what some would like to believe, and have others believe, not all Chrisitians are Christians because of some loopy doopy anti-scientific unhistorical illogical blind faith.
I’m partial to aomin.org, monergism.com, icr.org, answersingenesis.org, and carm.org
“A fool finds no pleasure in understanding, but delights in airing his own opinions.” Prv 18:2
“The first to present his case seems right, until another comes forward and questions him.” Prv 18:17
Thanks for proving my point. Christians telling Christians what they want to hear with no sources.
Charles Spurgeon does not cite a single source in this. It’s just another Christian telling you exactly what you want to hear, without providing any references.
What university did Spurgeon attend, and in what subject (that would qualify him as an expert in ancient manuscripts) was his degree? For that matter, what theological school did he attend that would qualify him as an expert on Christianity?
How can a guy who started preaching at the age of 16 or 17 claim to have taken an objective look at anything? If he approached evidence with the faith that it will prove the Bible correct, that is not “an objective look.”
How can a guy who takes the phrase, “Nature well known, no prodigies remain” to mean kids need to be indoctinated into the church while they are still young enough to be fooled into seeing miracles instead of science claim to have ever taken an objective look at anything?
How can a man who published (and personally endorsed) “The Down Grade”
claim to be objective?
“The Presbyterians were the first to get on the down line. They paid more attention to classical attainments and other branches of learning in their ministry than the Independents, while the Baptists had no academical institution of any kind. It would be an easy step in the wrong direction to pay increased attention to academical attainments in their ministers, and less to spiritual qualifications; and to set a higher value on scholarship and oratory, than on evangelical zeal and ability to rightly divide the word of truth.”
[quote]
There are presently over 5,300 known manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. In addition there are over 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts and over 9,300 copies of other early versions.
This gives us a total of over 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament that are known to exist today![/quote]
Yet not a single one referenced.
Christians telling Christians what they want to hear.
Translation, if you don’t take my word for it, take this other Christian’s.
In addition to the sheer numerical evidence, we must take into account the interval between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscript. The New Testament was composed between the years of 40-100 A.D. The earliest fragment found (the John Rylands’ papyrus - a fragment of the gospel of John) dates from approximately A.D. 130. The earliest complete manuscripts of the New Testament (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) are dated to the 4th Century.
Therefore, we have an interval of less than 50 years between the composition of the New Testament and partial manuscript copies of it, and an interval of less than 300 years between its composition and complete manuscript copies of it. Although this sounds like a considerable interval, it turns out to be remarkably small in comparison to other works of antiquity.
The Iliad was composed around 900 B.C. and the earliest extant copy dates to about 400 B.C. (an interval of 500 years). Caesar wrote in the range of 100-44 B.C. and the earliest copy of his work dates from A.D. 900 (an interval of approximately 1000 years). Herodotus wrote in the range of 480-425 B.C. and the earliest copy of his work dates from A.D. 900 (an interval of approximately 1300 years).
[quote]
In spite of these numbers, no classical scholar would dare to question the authenticity of Homer, Caesar or Herodotus.[/quote]
Of course they would. The authenticity of Shakespear’s work is questioned and it is only a few hundred years old.
[quote]
Because of the remarkable number of existing manuscripts, the accuracy of the New Testament text is virtually assured. One scholar has calculated that of the approximately 20,000 lines of the New Testament, only about 40 lines (approximately 400 words) are seriously disputed by textual critics (less than 1%). [/quote]
Again, he doesn’t bother to name this scholar. Just take his word for it.
Even if this were true, it doesn’t say anything about the Old Testament.
Even if it were only “40 lines” that were in question, you’d be a fool to state “The most important thing to remember when reading the Bible is that it is infallible and complete revelation of God to man. It was written by God through men and does not contain mistakes or contradictions.”
You don’t know that. Have all the faith you want, but don’t speak in absolutes about things that you can’t prove.