(April 21, 2012 at 5:26 pm)Cinjin Wrote:Another straw man fallacy.(April 21, 2012 at 10:33 am)Drich Wrote: The irony here is the same phenomena that you have pointed out here happens in archeology and in anthropology, and yet very little is questioned when a "new discovery" is documented.
That said know the bible was not written in a vacuum. Where their was sole authorship and no verification of any of the historical events, as your story suggests. There are many 10's of thousands of collaborating works...
... Not even one of which you would take the time to name - thereby backing your claim. Yeah, I've seen this "collaborating evidence" before. Some obscure Hebrew/Greek scroll that was once even considered by the church for augmentation into the Bible but didn't quite make it is now "collaborating evidence" for the Bible. It's the same old cyclical bull shit.
Drich would say, "see there's lots of writings about Jesus and the disciples and look how many books mention all the real cities and real politicians that the Bible does from the same time period... it must be true." **everyone in the room facepalms**
Once again the whole point of my fictional journal is lost. Yes sheep, there would certainly be many other books that would point out to legitimate historical people and events in my journal ... that doesn't make my account of any story remotely true. I could even get other people to rewrite my story in other books and even sell the rights to my life so that other authors could write all new stories about me in other books ... it doesn't mean jack shit.
Pay attention now ... REAL historical events in a fictional book don't make any of the fanciful stories true.
You fail to acknowledge or address the primary point of my last post to you.
The manuscripts supporting the bible, (Not only number of manuscripts, but also collaberation of text that have been gathered from all over the ancient world) Is THE Standard in which the legitimacy of all other ancient texts are measured. For no other work comes even close to the tens of thousands of manuscripts supporting the NT of the bible.
The closest is Homer's Iliad with 643 known manuscripts. To call in question the authenticity of the NT is to call into question of every single work from the era with less of a provenance.
Why don't you take the time to address this, rather than skirting the issue with another appeal to my personal pride?
