Medicine Woman said:
*************
M*W: There are so many discrepancies in the Bible that they are too numerous to list here. This subject has been rehashed many times on this forum. Even if some events may have been historically true, how does one determine that the spiritual truths are infallible? There's no way to do that. Paul commissioned Luke to write a gospel. Luke and Paul were close associates. In fact, the gospel of Luke does not mean it was written by Luke. Paul also had Luke write the Acts. There is no proof of any of it. Please explain what you mean by "scrutinized and tested numerous times and by whom?
I will write a few quotes from McDowell's book, More Than A Carpenter.
"By the twentieth century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri manuscripts (the John Ryland manuscript, A.D. 130; the Chester Beatty Papyri, A.D. 155; and the Bodmer Papyri II, A.D. 200) bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later data."
Sir Williams Ramsay, regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever to have lived paid little attention initiallity to the New Testament in his research on the history of Asia Minor. He was however forced to conclude after investigation that "Luke is a historian of the first rank...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." Because of the accuracy of the most minute detail, Ramsay finally conceded that Acts could not be a second-century document but was rather a mid-first-century account.
The New Testament and Oral Tradition
Simon Kristemaker, professor of Bible at Dordt College, writes: "Normally, the accumulation of folklore among people of primitive culture takes many generations; it is a gradual process spread over centuries of time. But in conformity with the thinking of the form critic, we must conclude that the Gospel stories were produced and collected within little more than one generation. In terms of the form-critical approach, the formation of the individual Gospel units must be understood as a telescoped project with accelerated course of action."
A careful at 1 Corinthians 7:10, 12, 25 shows the careful preservation and the existence of a genuine tradition of recording these words. In the Jewish religion it was customary for a student to memorize a rabbi's teaching. A good pupil was like "a plastered cistern that loses not a drop" (Mishna, Aboth, ii, 8)
When it comes to the manuscript authority of the New Testament, the abundance of material is almost embarassing in contarst. After the early papyri manuscript discoveries that bridged the gap between the times of Christ and the second century, an abundance of other MSS came to light. Over 20,000 copies of New Testament manuscripts are in existence today. The Illiad has 643 MSS and is second in manuscript authority after the New Testament.
Caesar composed his history of the Gallic Wars between 58 and 50 B.C. and its manuscript authority rests on nine or ten copies dating 1,000 years after his death.
Aristotle wrote his poetics around 343 B.C. and yet the earliest copy we have is dated A.D. 1100, nearly a 1400 year-gap, and only five MSS are in existence.
The history of Thucydides (560-400 B.C.) is available to us from just eight MSS dated about A.D. 900, almost 1300 years after he wrote. The MSS of the history of Herodotus are likewise late and scarce, and yet, as F.F. Bruce concludes,
No classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals."
The New Testament Greek scholar J. Harold Greenlee adds: "Since scholars accept as generally trustworthy the writings fo the ancient classics even though the earliest MSS were written so long after the original writings and the number of extant MSS in many instanes so small, it is clear that the reliability of the New Testament is likewise assured."
--------------
By now my hands hurt from typing so much. I hope your doubts about the New Testaments' historicity are now quelled. Remember, the historical reliability of the Scripture should be tested by the SAME criteria that all historical documents are tested by.
) and the gospels werent written by a single person who knew Jesus(saws) only paul he claimed to have met Jesus(saws) in a dream no seriously tell me would you believe a disciple who walked with Jesus or a man who made a living persecuting Jews then claimed to have a dream saying Jesus(saws) came to him. Now im not saying that couldnt happen however if you even look at what paul preached it was different than what Jesus taught. Jesus taught not to eat pork....paul said it was ok.......Jesus taught to worship God......Paul said you had to believe in the trinity......me point being that God said he wasnt "the author of confusion" so why did everything get so confused after paul's "conversion"?.....peace