Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by sultan:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
The bible has 25,000? (or another ridiculously high figure) manuscripts dating to only 50 years after the events.
|
fascinating. could you provide a source for this statement please? [/QUOTE]http://www.is-the-bible-true.com/
...with over 24,000 ancient New Testament manuscripts discovered thus far. [/QUOTE]so the 24,000 manuscripts you referred to are new testament references, most of which date hundreds of years after the event.
interestingly, a link from one of your references goes on to say...
http://www.dead-sea-scrolls.net/Dead-Sea-Scrolls.htm
"The Dead Sea Scrolls have provided phenomenal evidence for the credibility of biblical scripture. Specifically, the nearly intact Great Isaiah Scroll is almost identical to the most recent manuscript version of the Masoretic text from the 900's AD."
surely we can all admit as to the logical error in assuming that, just because mankind was capable of accurately copying a work for a millenium, it somehow implies that the source material itself was true or accurate.
Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
http://www.ge-li.de/LingenbergEngl/bibel.htm
"There are to the 8000 manuscripts of the Latin Vulgata and at least thousand other former versions. In addition come over 4000 Greek manuscripts, and therewith we have 13000 manuscript copies of parts of the new testaments.
|
again, repeating the logical error cited above.
furthermore, a quick squiz at the site makes it clear that this site is little more than "the bible proves itself", via interpretation (in some cases) and prophecy confirmation (in others) where the confirmation comes from... the bible.
perhaps i'm being unfair. it's easy to trawl through the evidence and only pick out those pieces that support your cause, isnt it?
Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html
"No archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible."
|
oh. i should have read this first. i see that, by your own admission, the bible is little more than a history book. i suppose any book has lessons that can be learned from it. okay, nevermind. you're right.
since i'm now on your side, i'd like to ask you to respond to maelakin's concerns. then we can all have a group hug. [img]graemlins/bighug.gif[/img]