RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 18, 2015 at 9:37 pm
(This post was last modified: May 18, 2015 at 10:10 pm by Randy Carson.)
(May 17, 2015 at 9:12 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:(May 17, 2015 at 8:49 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: because we're not approaching the Bible as an inspired text at that point but merely as an historically accurate book.
It's called a spiral argument.
You've yet to demonstrate that the buy-bull is historically accurate and in fact, your argument has been that the buy-bulls of today are faithful reproductions of the originals (and you haven't even managed to make a good argument for that), not that the originals were anything more than the "Harry Potter" books of the era. You'll have an incredibly tough time selling that collection of faery stories as anything remotely approaching an accurate historical text.
You're right.
The objectively verifiable accuracy material is yet to come. Surely you can understand why I had to put a few things in place before proceeding.
Thus far, I have posted only three points out of 10 or so that I plan to present. The "why were the gospels written" question addresses directly whether the authors intended to write reliable history or not. This is significant because some skeptics argue that the early Christians were engaged in some sort of conspiracy. If so, it was a conspiracy that was never exposed even when martyrdom was the reward for their silence.
The cumulative effect of the evidence will suggest that the NT is historically reliable and that acceptance of the supernatural claims contained within those historically reliable books is justified.
Now, if you think that my argument in the OP is deficient in any way, by all means, copy it into a new post of your own and present your refutation/argument line by line. We shouldn't proceed any further until you can agree that the text is a faithful reproduction...otherwise, we'll get to some critical point, and you'll use the corrupted text argument as your get out of jail free card.
The historical reliability of the Bible should be tested by the same criteria by which all historical documents are tested. C. Sanders, in Introduction to Research in English Literary History, lists the three basic principles of historiography:
the bibliographical test,
the internal evidence test, and
the external reference test.
Bibliographical Test
The Bibliographical test is an examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us. In other words, since we do not have the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts (MSS) and the time interval between the original and extant copies?
As you can see from the OP, the NT manuscripts clearly meet the standard of the Bibliographical Test.
Let's move on to the internal evidence test next and then follow with the external evidence test.
I have a bit of typing to do to prepare the post, so bear with me. This might take a day or so to complete.
(May 17, 2015 at 9:20 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(May 17, 2015 at 6:54 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: In post #131, I simply mentioned that Craig had written an extensive article in response to Hume in the event that robvalue wanted to hear an alternative perspective on the supernatural and on Hume specifically.
I have not used Craig to establish the reliability of the NT.
Therefore, what you think of WLC is irrelevant to this thread.
'Nuff said.
So essentially you just wanted to do some cowardly grandstanding, claiming that nobody could defeat WLC's intellectually dishonest presuppositionalist buffoonery, and then flee the moment anybody actually took you up on that challenge.
Can you please cite the post # in which I made the claim which you assert that I made?
(May 17, 2015 at 11:46 pm)Rhythm Wrote:(May 17, 2015 at 8:49 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: because we're not approaching the Bible as an inspired text at that point but merely as an historically accurate book.
It's called a spiral argument.
I don't know, I think that you probably could have stated it better, because that was pretty rough, amigo. Now, it just seems as though you're deflecting...? So, let me get this straight, the reason that you know the bible is true..then, is not the reason that you gave before? When you said:
Quote:The Bible is truth because it is inspired
?
Is there, now, a different reason that you accept that "the bible is truth"? Care to share? -and, if you please..this time...start with your actual reasons..so we can avoid all of this in the future?
Rhythm-
Not in this thread...I would be happy to defend the Spiral Argument at another time, but the mob at the gates is demanding more on the OP and I don't like the look of those pitchforks they're carrying.
