The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Randy Carson]

What's the point of all this?

The only claims that matter in the bible are the supernatural ones, and they are impossible to validate. Especially so with just a textual account. The rest of it is of no consequence. Without these, it's just an inaccurate history/story book.

Apologies if you're not actually trying to prove Christianity is true.

The point is to lay some groundwork.

Some folks claim that the Bible cannot be trusted because we do not have an accurate translation. I have just demolished that argument.

After the cat-calls have died down, we can move on to the next link in the chain of evidence.

But looking at your own post, perhaps you could be more specific about what you meant when you said that it is "inaccurate". How, exactly, is it inaccurate?

In its content? We'll get to that. In that the words we read today or not the words the authors wrote? I just dealt with that.

So, inaccurate in what way?

Thanks.

---

Either the text that you can read today is an accurate translation of what the original author wrote or it isn't.

Can you have two different english translations of the bible that are still both "accurate?"  What if they're somewhat or wholly inconsistent?

Yes to the first. No to the second, but if you have something specific in mind, that would be more helpful.

Thanks.