Au.Ag.Mzch
New Member
jpanggy said:
To be fair, if you think that 20yrs is too long a gap and makes the Bible unreliable, then let's make a similar comparison to other ancient manuscripts. Note the Time Gap between the date written and earliest copy/ies available, and the No. of Manuscripts:
http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence
Author Date Written Earliest Copy Time Gap No. of Manuscripts Accuracy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 yrs 7 ---- (can't be verified)
Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1000 10 ---- ( " " " ")
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1400 49 ---- ( " " " ")
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95%
Compare these documents (which no one really questions their authenticity) to the New Testament:
Author Date Written Earliest Copy Time Gap No. of Manuscripts Accuracy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Testament 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D.) 2nd Cent. A.D.(c. 130 A.D. f.) less than 100 years 5,600 99.5%
Also consider the following:
- Notice that at the end of 'chinese whispers' we can go back to the original person to ask them what the original message was. In the same way, if within 20-50yrs there were false reports or stories starting to arise, then the early church members could go back to any of the multiple eye-witnesses that would've still been alive and verify the validity of these claims.
- Back then, society had a much stronger emphasis on verbal/oratory communication rather than written/literary, as not everyone was privileged to have been schooled in reading and writing. So it could be said that recalling events via word-of-mouth was a valid form of evidence (especially when the original eye-witnesses could be contacted to confirm details).
- Finally, even though there are no known NT manuscripts/fragments up until 50AD, that doesn't necessarily mean that the early church wasn't writing down the events that were occurring either as they happened, or not long after (eg. months or a few years after they happened). They didn't exactly have the means of preserving manuscripts like we have today, so it's most likely that any earlier manuscripts simply wore out over 100s of years of wear and tear. With that said, there's always the possibility that archaeologists may find fragments within that 20AD time frame, which only adds to the mountain of evidence already available.
Let me end my $0.02 with this, since I really don't want GP to have to keep closing down topics due to them going on 'general discussion' tangents. I've done my own research and come to my own conclusions about the validity of the Bible. I offer the information above not to try to argue people into believing what I believe (which only frustrates everyone), but so that anyone who's sceptical but open can also do their own due diligence and come to their own conclusions as well. If anyone wants to discuss this topic further (or any other topic about God, Jesus, Christianity, etc), you can PM me with any genuine questions and I'll do my best to answer them.
Otherwise, let's get back on topic about the Greek elections and what we know is coming.
