• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

History Of The Bible, Accuracy Etc.

We have copies of other ancient documents that are considered historically accurate. For example, Caesar wrote his history of the Gallic Wars between 50 and 60 BC. The earliest copies we have were made around the year 1000. We have ten copies from that time period. They are considered by historians to be accurate.

The Roman historian Tacitus wrote his Annals of Imperial Rome in about 115 AD. We have one copy of the first six books in this series. It was copied in about 850 AD. Books 11 through 16 are available in a copy made about 1050 AD. Books 7 through 10 are lost. The Annals of Imperial Rome is considered by historians to be accurate.

We have nine Greek manuscripts of first century historian Josephus' work titled, "The Jewish War." These copies were made in the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries. They are considered by historians to be accurate.

Aristotle lived around 350 BC. The earliest copy of his epic poems comes from A.D.1100 -- over 1,400 years after his death. We have five early copies of Aristotle's works.

We have eight copies, dated about 900 A.D., of the history of Thucydides. He lived in the mid-400's BC. Historians have long ago determined, based on these eight manuscripts created 1300 years after the original was written, that the history of Thucydides is accurate.

Homer's Iliad, the bible of the ancient Greeks, composed in 800 BC has an impressive 650 ancient Greek copies available -- the earliest is from the second and third centuries AD - 1000 years after the original was written.

So how does the New Testament compare with these universally accepted historical documents?

We have over 22,000 early copies of ancient New Testament manuscripts. Some papyri manuscripts date to the first century, within a few decades of when the original was written. There are over 5,600 ancient Greek manuscripts. Over 9,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts. And over 8,000 ancient manuscripts in Ethiopic, Slavic and Armenian. The earliest copies date so close to when the originals were written that the time difference is essentially non-existent.

We have papyri copies containing portions of the Gospels, the book of Acts, Paul's letters and the book of Hebrews made in the first, second and third centuries. The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri date to about the year 200. The M. Martin Bodmer Papyri also date to about the year 200. The Saint John's Library Papyri -- containing a portion of the book of John -- was made in Egypt and dates to between the years 98 and 130 AD (The book of John was written in approximately 90 AD).

No other ancient historical documents come even close to being available in such large numbers (the Iliad is second with 650 copies) as is the New Testament.

No other ancient historical documents are available in copies made so soon after the originals were written.
 
I think it would be interesting from a language point of view to actually read these historical documents (the New Testament) in the older form and see
the difference between the King James version. If in fact God/Yaweh/etc. has more meaning in that language than it does in ours (English). I'd be interested in seeing a historical copy of Revelations just to see if the style of writing is different. If the tone or voice is sort of prediction or storytelling etc. Or if it more fits in with poetics. Like if there is an actual style (so many words per page or so many words per line) or is more symbol orientated? Or if it more vulgar like Old English to read. And that the Bible in certain aspects has been rewritten in parts to make it more understandable.
 
So how does the New Testament compare with these universally accepted historical documents?

We have over 22,000 early copies of ancient New Testament manuscripts. Some papyri manuscripts date to the first century, within a few decades of when the original was written. There are over 5,600 ancient Greek manuscripts. Over 9,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts. And over 8,000 ancient manuscripts in Ethiopic, Slavic and Armenian. The earliest copies date so close to when the originals were written that the time difference is essentially non-existent.

We have papyri copies containing portions of the Gospels, the book of Acts, Paul's letters and the book of Hebrews made in the first, second and third centuries. The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri date to about the year 200. The M. Martin Bodmer Papyri also date to about the year 200. The Saint John's Library Papyri -- containing a portion of the book of John -- was made in Egypt and dates to between the years 98 and 130 AD (The book of John was written in approximately 90 AD).

No other ancient historical documents come even close to being available in such large numbers (the Iliad is second with 650 copies) as is the New Testament.

No other ancient historical documents are available in copies made so soon after the originals were written.


The problem is.. while biblical documents are historical in themselves, they do not relay facts. The relay faith, superstition. The Illiad has no more or less validity than the Bible when you start talking about spirits and the existence of god(s).

Yes Biblical collections and historical documents are fascinating. And there’s a lot not known.. and as your post proves,you have it down better than I. But how many of these stories happened and years passed before they were converted from passed down by word of mouth stories.. to actual paper? And since the original print, how many things have been changed by men with agendas?

And how many copies were made (whether it be then or now) does nothing to the validity. Ooh.. someone made a copy (I know then it’s a lot different than now) but it doesn’t prove anything extra.

The Bible does mention historic events..but lets face it. The Bible is just another "da vinci code" so to speak. Alot of history inserted into alot of fiction/superstition. Just as the Illiad. It doesn't make the book in its entirity hisorically accurate. Passing down stories before recording them, takes away validity. A man's personal perspective on unfolding events is limited and also not objective. Objectivity in a human being is virtually impossible.

The King James version.. for instance.. is different than the original scripts. Gee.. i wonder why? Think King James had something to do with it?

Is this another prime example of "my version is better than your version?"
 
If we placed together zorn, DigitalDuality, michael, Stasis, AcidFiend, and killarava on a mission to follow someone around for several years, covering several cities, and had each individual document the occurrences, there would be descrepancies in the details. Since there would be descrepancies, does that mean what they observed and documented never took place?

That's the straw man argument you guys are using.
 
a better analogy would be that they follow someone around and then they are made to wait 70 years to write about what happened.

sure, something took place but how accurate would be their account?

alasdair
 
^Actually, John was a FIRSTHAND witness to Jesus's life and His crucifixion. So, your comment is innacurrate. :) And it isnt like he went into hiding and forgot all about Jesus between the time of seeing Jesus and writing about it...It was his everyday life to preach the message of Jesus. So why is it hard to believe he was accurate in his writings?
 
they're afraid to give up worldly pleasures

It's because they don't like the message Sohi :\
 
Originally posted by SoHiAllTheTime
^Actually, John was a FIRSTHAND witness to Jesus's life and His crucifixion.


i'm not questioning that.

i am simply asking you to consider if an account written 70 years after the event can be: reasonably compared with an account written at the time; considered as accurate?

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
Originally posted by SoHiAllTheTime
^Actually, John was a FIRSTHAND witness to Jesus's life and His crucifixion.


i'm not questioning that.

i am simply asking you to consider if an account written 70 years after the event can be: reasonably compared with an account written at the time; considered as accurate?

alasdair

Yes, i think it is reasonable to think it were accurate...I already explained why above...John went on for the rest of his life preaching the message of Jesus and telling of his life, so the story of Jesus was not justa story to him, it was in fact his entire life. So i feel safe in assuming his message was as accurate as if he wrote it the day after Jesus died. :)
 
^ good point.

whatever, i think that it's pretty clear that turbo monk's analogy doesn't really stand up to vigourous examination.

thanks guys.

alasdair
 
It is all about perception folks...Either you believe or you dont. If you dont then no matter what is presented to you you will always find a reason to not believe it. It really is pretty simple. :\

I just wish more of you would actually read the Bible and make up your OWN mind whether it is the Word of God or not. :(
 
Well, being someone who does STUDY (that means more than just read it once or twice) i can tell who and who has not read it or studied it from what people post. And trust me, there are very very few on BL who i would say has studied the Bible - no more than a handfull i am willing to bet. And i have never read anything from you that would tell me that you have...In fact, i would gladly put you to the test any day you were ready for it. :)

You asking me that is like asking a math major how they can tell who knows algebra and who doesnt.
 
rofl. i didn't say anything about studying it, although i have from a purely literary standpoint. i don't have much use for wasting my time studying a book of fiction which, to be honest, do3esn't interest me all that much.

nice try on deflecting the question though.

:)
 
^Deflecting the question!? How so???




And you showed your cards with this statement:

"i don't have much use for wasting my time studying a book of fiction which, to be honest, do3esn't interest me all that much."


At least you admit just how closeminded you really are! Thanks. Now i know not to waste my time with you. :) Well, i already knew that whcih proves i know who does and who does not know the bible, you are a perfect example.

You better never call someone closeminded my friend - ever. You have no ground to stand on.
 
How can you say the Bible is completely accurate? What about kings and other powerful figures that had certain sections changed to their liking?

What parts can you say are right or wrong then.
 
Top