STEVE: If we're only talking about historical accuracy and dating, why did you say the following? "Because we aren't debating who wrote Ceaser's war chronicles, nor does any faith hinge on what he wrote" Why bring faith into it? I was giving an example only of another historical written account.
You have taken that out of context Steve. My response was in answer to you query as to why there are no greatdebates on the authenticity of Caesars Chronicles. I simply answered by suggesting it may bedue to the fact nogreat faith or relevance hinges on them. May be wrong but it does seem quitelogical to me.
STEVE:I think I have addressed this further in #636,
I disagree.
STEVE: The books of the NT were were written in the latter part of the first century; the earliest manuscripts are of the 4th century, say from 250 to 300 years later.
LOL,thatsounds like a lot of conjecture to me and certainly indicates quite clearly that they reallydon't know. First offthere are no records of when the originals were written or who wrote themas they were never signed nor did the author name himself. The best they have for timing is conjecture based on events referenced with the writings. They have nothing on authorship other than 250 yr old hearsay as the good Dr inadvertantly points out. How does he know themanuscriptsof the 4th century are a true copy of the originals?
I know your Catholic sources disagree
Therein in lays the source of your real problem Steve.They are the ones that actually canonised thoseold manuscripts into the Bible and hold the only evidence relating to those early days. If what they haveisn't enough for them to verify it beyond conjecture and belief just what on earth are these other coots using to arrive at the dates and authors you put up? They don't agree on dates etc because they simply don't know, their all guessing,none of the Gospels were dated nor did the writer identify himself. In fact the early church discarded another 27 gospels as fraud, how do they know these are any different.
This may sound a considerable interval, but it is nothing to that of... the great classical authors." He goes on to give examples: Sophocles 1400 year gap, Euripides 1600, Plato 1300 - yet all these and others are considered to have complete copies of their writings
LOL, sounds like your Ceasar analogy eh what! Again who cares if Plato or Sophocles writings were altered or not, we accept them as classical works, great writings to read, but no more than that. Wecertainly don't live our lives according to them or run great institutions of faith based on them do we. We are not asked to have faith in them or believe in any greater "being" by them. If that were the case then they would be under far more scrutiny as well I suppose.I think
Dr. John Warwick Montgomeryis scapping the bottom of the barrell if that's the best he's got to offer by way of proof, sounds more like pleading to me.
As for #639, that response by Lewis appears pretty lame to me, more like hey, look, it's not imaginative orartisticin style so it must be factual. Give me a break.
I think you are saying, if all the theologians/historians don't agree exactly on dates, then how can you believe any of it
No, what I am saying is that instead of using such spurious examples as the good Dr above has done they should just say "Look, we don't honestly know when they were written, orwho really wrote them, but we believethey were written around this time by people who had access to witnesses and we believe the are a real account of events"
In other words, a little bit of honesty and integrity wouldn't go astray instead of all the rubbish they try and put over. The truth is they have relied on ignorance to carry on a liefor nearly 1900 years but are now being caught out and can't publicly acknowledge that they just don'tknow when or by whom they were written for fear the whole house of cards will come crumbling down. You asked earlier why I don't believe, it is because they have constantly lied and decieved, waged wars for greed and power and used God's name for political purposes to suit there own ends.What about all the wars they've had, all the splinter break away religions, over the last millenia the one true church has now desintegrated into 1,000's, allarguing between themselves and claiming to know better than the other. Are you saying they are all right, if not which ones are and which is wrong, or does one just choose which suits best with what they want.Sheesh, give me one valid reason why I shouldbelieve one single thing the hypocrites have to say?
STEVE: I think you are saying, if all the theologians/historians don't agree exactly on dates, then how can you believe any of it. I look at it differently; I look at the different ideas and say, I think this one is right.
Yep, I reckon that pretty much covers how they come up with the dates and authors, whenall else fails just take your bestguess at what sounds best. Now that we finally agree on that issue we can move on eh!
