RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 14, 2015 at 4:07 pm
(This post was last modified: May 14, 2015 at 4:15 pm by Simon Moon.)
(May 14, 2015 at 3:38 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Either the text that you can read today is an accurate translation of what the original author wrote or it isn't.
So, yes or no?
Oh, and some "why" would be nice if you have anything.
It is not so easy. There are parts that are accurate to the original, and parts that aren't.
For example, the oldest and most reliable copies of Mark end at verse 16:8. 16:9 - 20 are almost assuredly a later addition by apologists. So, we have at least one example of the current Bible that is not accurate to the original.
But why should we care? An accurate copy or translation of the original only means that we have a accurate copy or translation of a fictional, mythological text. Textual accounts of supernatural events are not valid forms of evidence.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
