RE: Alpha episode 2: Is there more to life than this? Join the Alpha Course for a share of the SBD from this series of posts
Hi maninayton,
Have you ever looked into the validity of the New Testament?
If you don't mind, I'd like to share some information about how preserved it's been in comparison with other ancient documents. There are several that can be used for comparison, but I'll add just a few to keep this short, and give you a link where you can check out the accuracy of this, plus you can search for the info yourself.
The New Testament has a 99.5% level of accuracy in comparison with the original documents, and most biblical scholars agree that it was written within 70 years following the death and resurrection of Christ.
Homer's (Iliad) trails behind that at a 95% level of accuracy and was copied 500 years after the original texts.
Sophocles and Aristotle trail behind the above two with no proof of accuracy and both were copied 1400 years after the original copies.
There are fragments of the Gospel of John that date back to AD 125 that are virtual copies of the original and match up at nearly 100, with slight translation variations, that hold the same meaning.
Link to info on the "Rylands Library Papyrus"
With the documented information that we have today, one would have to disregard all of the other ancient writings as there are none among all those listed above, as accurately preserved as the Bible.
Hello, @livingwaters. Thank you for your comment and for taking the time and trouble to provide the links. Unfortunately, the argument you use for the historical accuracy of the Bible is misleading. It doesn't matter if the copies of the Bible were 99.5% accurate (a claim that I doubt anyway), if the original was a made up story to begin with then any 'evidence' taken from that source will be false. There is no evidence that the original gospels were true - they are more likely to have been written by believers to promote their particular religion. Also bear in mind the authors of the gospels were not eye witnesses to any of the events contained in the gospels which in itself can be a major source of error.
Both Matthew and John who wrote two of the Gospels comprising the New Testament were eye witnesses. In fact, they spent over three years with Jesus.
All of the gospels are considered to have been the work of anonymous writers between 70 and 110 CE. Links here and here.
There were no eye witnesses. Everything the Christian religion (and all other religions for that matter) is based on is hearsay.
Thanks @maninayton for taking the time to reply. The question I have for you is why do you believe the sources you provide are credible, reliable and valid? It doesn't seem to me that any of those sources are credible, peer-reviewed articles or scholars/authorities in their field, and how can they be trusted? Seems like what you say about Christians pushing a particular agenda is true in those instances. With any belief system, you need evidence to support your claims. I haven't seen any evidence to support the claims of Atheism that prove God doesn't exist. I would like to hear your views on that too.
You said There were no eye witnesses. Everything the Christian religion (and all other religions for that matter) is based on is hearsay.
What evidences do you have to support your claim that there were no eye witnesses and everything was based on hearsay?
Would appreciate hearing more specific arguments/evidence you have to support your claims above. Thanks again for your contributions to the discussions. I'm enjoying our discussion too.
Atheism doesn't need evidence to support non-belief. I don't believe in any god just as I don't believe in fairies because there is no supporting evidence. There is no need for me to prove God doesn't exist for it is religion as a whole that is making extraordinary claims and therefore needs to provide extraordinary evidence. It doesn't and until it does I won't believe (and that applies to any to any religion by the way). The sources I provide point out errors and inaccuracies in the bible which can be verified by just looking through one, they do not make claims of a supernatural being. As to eye witnesses, there is no contemporary eye witness accounts of anything a person called Jesus did or said. I would have thought that someone who is supposed to have performed miricles would have created something of a stir and would have been committed on. There is nothing. If you can provide a contemporary account I would be interested to see it. Till next time - take care.
Hi again @maninayton,
Atheism like any other belief system requires evidence or else you are simply jumping into its claims with blind faith. If you said you were agnostic, then you don’t need to prove anything, because you would be unsure about whether God exists. But since you believe in Atheism, Atheism claims that there is definitely no God, and the universe and life came into existence without any intelligent design and intervention. If you looked at the extraordinary number of factors that is required for life to exist on Earth and the improbability of this happening, you would know that the claim of Atheism is arguably an even more extraordinary claim. So yes, you would need to provide evidence supporting your claim that without any doubt, there is no God/intelligent design, and the universe was a coincidence.
You said The sources I provide point out errors and inaccuracies in the bible which can be verified by just looking through one, they do not make claims of a supernatural being.
Well, the sources you provided aren’t credible. They are websites that no serious scholar/authority in their field would take seriously. The inconsistencies are either taken out of context or misunderstood. For example, the original text of the OT and NT were in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, not English, so scrutinizing over English words without understanding of the original and without understanding of the whole context of the Bible is not credible.
As to eye witnesses, there is no contemporary eye witness accounts of anything a person called Jesus did or said.
Although I disagree with you about the authorship of the four Gospels. Taking the authorship issue out of the equation. Just because the author may not be an eye witness, doesn’t mean their sources weren’t eye witnesses. Just as our modern day news and history is usually not written by the eye witnesses themselves, but is rather written by journalists and historians who interview eye witnesses to collate their account of what happened, more so in Jesus’ time, accounts were usually passed around first orally. Not sure if you’ve read thrugh all four Gospels yourself, but the detail in the Gospels are pretty vivid, and it takes a lot of faith to believe that all of this was made up.
In addition, I previously talked about archeological evidence that proved people and places in the Gospels were all accurate.
I would have thought that someone who is supposed to have performed miricles would have created something of a stir
Not sure how much of a stir you need, but the fact that we are talking about him 2000 years later, billions of people throughout history worshipping him as Lord, lives transformed, and many willing to die for him isn’t enough of a stir, then I don’t know what is.
The fact that it didn’t create more of a stir among people at the time, was because the Jewish religious authorities and Roman ruling authorities at the time wanted to suppress what had happened to save face and keep control of the people.
Until next time, Jimmy
Just because the document is accurately preserved does not validate the information.