[Yorick]

Originally posted by sultan: 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.

You are speaking about the most validated work around. As mentioned, the Iliad is next with 600 odd copies. If you have a problem with the way we ascertain historical fact from fiction take it up with history professors, not me. If you call into question the validity and accuracy of the most validated work of humanity, you DEvalidate recorded history itself. You call into question Hammurabis existence, Cleopatras existence, Solon, Socrates, Plato.. all people who's life and actions are less validated.

The measurement of a later copy with an earlier copy assures us that tampering, word changes, intent changes and other evidences of truth-stretching were not apparent. The closer to the primary source, the more accurate the work.

I am a lay-historian. I studied at university for a time, and have kept self teaching myself during my life. I enjoy history. Not all is fact. One has to allow for the bias of every writer.

The interesting thing, is that the bias of the gospel writers actually support what they were recording. Someone with a vested interest in Jesus life, had a greater motivation for recording the truth of his life, no matter how bizzarre it may have seemed.

I repeat: Assessing the truth of something based on whether or not it co-aligns with a preconceived knowledge of truth is not an open minded approach, nor one which is condusive to increased understanding. If an extremly trustworthy friend who has never lied to you,and only ever given you words of benefit tells you something that seems implausible (that your wife slept with the postman) based on preconceived knowledge, you could in fact remain ignorant of the truth.

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?

The bible crossreferences itself, proves itself daily and is supported by scientific discovery and archaeology. You asked for references, I provided references. If this is not enough go do your own research. 24,000 manuscripts have been found to date. That was the information I gave you didn't believe.

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] [/QB]

The bible contains books that are historical yes. It is not limited to historical books. The statement I quoted is not preclusive. That as much should have been obvious.

It's wierd that you contested a point. Ie. the number of manuscripts found. When it turns out to be "on the money" give or take a thousand, you decide to challenge other points.

[ 10-27-2003, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]