The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Randy Carson]

So, you're changing your own scenario. Just being reliable and being in court isn't enough now. So say they did whatever thing was needed to "get your attention" and then said Islam was true, and that you should convert. Would you believe them?

Not really changing anything, Rob. I'm simply explaining - poorly, I guess - how circumstantial evidence works in a court of law. Now, what you demand is direct empirical evidence. You'll have to get that from God. Unfortunately, you'll be the butt of endless jokes if you do.

As you may or may not recall, Timothy McVeigh was convicted of the Oklahoma City bombing (which took place in 1995). The evidence against McVeigh was largely circumstantial, but prosecutors won the conviction. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht stated, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence."

The only record we have of God doing anything is in the bible, which is the claim. So until we've established any of it is true, you can't assume it actually happened in order to justify your claim and say "God killed false prophets". That is begging the question, again.

Well, duh. That's why I started this thread in the first place. To demonstrate that, claims from skeptics to the contrary, the NT is historically reliable. All the evidence points to this, and the general reliability of authors suggests that they should be given the benefit of the doubt since there is nothing in their character or motives suggesting that they lied.

No, there isn't any credible historian who would say that if you can demonstrate most of an account is true, you should believe all the rest of it no matter how wild the claims. Only those who already believe in the story would take this approach. It's not intellectually honest or consistent.

This happens in courtrooms every day. The defense attorney tries to destroy the character of the witnesses against his client while other people are brought in to testify that he was a Boy Scout, a model citizen, a great father, employee of the year, etc. Why?

Because we make judgement calls about someone's credibility based on other things we learn about them.

---

There is evidence.

What you call evidence obviously isn't since it isn't evident to all. Are you really this thick or are you just so lost to reason because you've taken such an unreasonable position?!?

Sure there is. Lots of it.

It's indirect or circumstantial, but it's sufficient. See my post above regarding Timothy McVeigh.

---

We have multiple recorded instances of the bible being actively edited. Ex the council of Nicaea.

Please cite your sources.

Except that those copies disagree with each other. For example the story of let he who is without sin throw the first stone is not in copies older then the 9th century.

For simplicity, see the Wiki article which cites the earliest copy from the fourth or fifth century. In brief, in 1941, a large collection of writings by Didymus the Blind was discovered, and several copies contain the pericope adulterae. Jerome speaks of this passage, also. Therefore, the pericope was contained in manuscripts from at least the fourth century.

And this is a pattern: archaeological research always confirms and pushes back the dating of the NT, doesn't it? Not bad for a 2,000 year-old document.

So, while atheists are confident that eventually science will sort it all out and be able to explain everything (a sort of "science of the gaps" argument), perhaps what is REALLY going to happen is that eventually, Christianity will have filled in the missing pieces in its history. Seems reasonable given that it is true...

Who ever told you those number is lying to you. There are multiple examples of of large textual changes when the copies are compared. for example the oldest of luke do not contain chapters one and two and the oldest copies of mark end at mark 16:3.

Sources please. And I have noted that while there are over 400,000 variants (mostly spelling variations, etc.), not one of these variants calls into question a single doctrine of Christianity.

Partially true but a group of people is needed to simulate the real world conditions.

Fair enough. But remember: The apostles didn't slink out of town under cover of darkness after the crucifixion in order to begin proclaiming the resurrection in some distant village. No, on Pentecost, they preached openly in Jerusalem to a crowd that was very familiar with the facts of the case. If anyone in that crowd had wanted to dispute the preaching of Peter, that was the time to do it. But instead, God showed up, and 3,000 people were added to the Church in single day.

Kinda hard to play telephone when there are so many witnesses constantly verifying and confirming the original message the apostles preached.

Yes except they wrote it in a language that few people in jesus's home country would have been able to understand. The 2 common languages in Palestine in the time of jesus were mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic. Legal administration memebers may have known latin, but only the top tier educated people would have read in Greek and the gospels are written in koine Greek. Its like trying to get a message to Americans and writing it in french.

It was written in Greek eventually. Matthew may have written originally in Hebrew or Aramaic. Further, Luke says that "many have undertaken to write an account" and while these accounts are lost today, Luke was obviously familiar with them in his own day.

But perhaps most importantly, you are not accounting for the fact that Christianity began by preaching - not by reading a book. And I think we can both agree that the Apostles preached in Aramaic - at least in Judea.

More later.

Oh, and let me    you for being one of a very small number who have actually attempted any interaction with my OP at all. I had expected stiff opposition from the home crowd, but little of it has been substantive.