The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Randy Carson]

Randy,

Here's the issue with your argument. It doesn't fucking matter. Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the NT is perfectly preserved in all points, exactly as the original authors intended. It proves nothing about the factual nature of what the text describes.

Let's suppose (for the sake of argument) that 2000 years from now, after a couple cataclysms, there are people worshiping our Lord and Savior, Harry Potter. They have copies of the Holy Septology, an account of the seven most important years of the life of Harry in detail as described by his most humble disciple J.K. Rowling. There has been heretical talk that the Holy Septology may be corrupt. Indeed, talk that it may even contain errors.

You are the guy trying to prove that they do indeed have true and accurate copies of the Holy Septology.

Whether the copies are faithful to the originals is absolutely irrelevant.

SOW-

On the one hand, you are right. Having an accurate copy of fairy tales doesn't make the case for Christianity. But having an accurate copy ABSOLUTELY silences the freshman-level argument that the Bible we have today is a corrupted text. This is a common Muslim argument, btw.

In order to make an airtight defense, I have to begin at the beginning and address each potential objection in turn.

Another argument against the NT is that it was written too late (ie, second century) to have been authored by eyewitnesses. I've addressed that, too.

So, thus far, I have only made two points:

1. The text of the modern NT is accurate.
2. The books of the NT were written early enough to have been the work of eyewitnesses or hearers of actual eyewitnesses.

I will be posting the next few points in the chain in the coming days, weeks and months.

Stay tuned.

---

I familiar with WLC. I'll say no more than that!

I can't read anything from your post. No links seem to work.

Try this:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-probl...erspective