(January 1, 2014 at 12:11 am)Aractus Wrote:(December 31, 2013 at 11:54 pm)là bạn điên Wrote: The Bible is an appalling historical document and is reliable for almost nothing.Perhaps you'd like to explain what the more reliable historical documents from this time are? Specifically the ones that we are surer of of their original wording, if you don't mind.
I am assuming that you have no idea of the difference between primary and secondary evidence so ill explain it.
Primary evidence is actual artifact. Secondary evidence is Narrative. Here is an example.
Le'ts take an imaginary battle from 1500 CE We have reports that x number of people were there. These change from person to person and from how long afterwards the events happened so they aren't very reliable. This is secondary evidence.
However lets say we find stack of bills for provisions and munitions and a book of accounts. this is primary evidence, it will give us a far better idea of how many people were there.
The Gospels are at best very poor primary evidence based on testimony, probably second hand, from decades before.
a Good analogy would be a court case. Witness testimony is considered to be the worst evidence. Indeed courts in the UK will only accept narrative from notes if the notes were written within 24 hours and they don't accept hearsay and yet you believe 30 year old memories (at best) and hearsay are actually good evidence