The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Randy Carson]

Not so, PT.

The gospels and the epistles were written in Greek.

My English translation was made from the Greek and not from some intermediary language(s).

Directly from the Greek originals?

As I explained in the OP, the translations that we have to day are made from demonstrably accurate copies of the Greek manuscripts which are scattered about in museums and churches all over the world. The autographs themselves are lost.

Do they differ significantly from that versions that went the Latin into vulgate? And what guarantee do you have that the one translation didn't inflict a modified meaning?

Jerome translated from the Greek to the Latin, but beyond this, I could not say. However, modern English translations are not taken from the Vulgate.

It's Greek > English. No intermediate steps.

---

This happens in courtrooms around the world every day. Jurors are asked to evaluate evidence, to consider the credibility of the witnesses, and to make a decision.

Unfortunately, in this case, almost nothing is known about the credibility of the witnesses and they prove themselves all too willing to forego the basic questions even a moderately skeptical person would ask if they experienced voices and visions. Evaluating miracles in history or today is not like judging the guilt of a person accused of committing some crime. Your appeal to such a silly comparison demonstrates your utter lack of seriousness concerning the points you wish us to address.

Well, I can understand why you might make such an assertion, but it is just that. We can draw reasonable conclusions from the facts that can be verified. There is simply no basis for believing that the authors of the gospels were anything other than reliable eyewitnesses.

The evidence for Christianity is stronger than most of the members of this forum would lead you to believe and better than authors like Bart Ehrman care to admit.

No, it really isn't, as your arguments have shown.

I'm just getting started.