(1) Dr.Canuck ; do you accept the Greek Classical age? None of which is substantiated by manuscript histories of more than a handful of documents and fragments. We have the Dead Sea Scrolls that establish the Jewish Old Testament as ESTABLISHED and WHOLE prior to the time of Christ and the Septuagint translation before it(400-500) years BC…
(2) We have HUNDREDS of same-content documents dating to the 2nd Century AD which attest to the content of the New Testament. We literally have THOUSANDS of New Testament manuscripts lending historic credibility to the historicity of the Bible account.
(3) We have EYEWITNESS accounts of events; which are historically verified by contemporary secular writers.
Bruce, your post a few up contains a number of assumptions which are not true: “The winner writes the history”: The Christians were not the “winners” until Constantine, with few exceptions. And the FULL Biblical canon was already established by then.
“The Bible is a hash of spurious and illegitimate documents”: Again : the Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint testify to the full Old Testament by 500BC; which is even more remarkable when secular historians start the whole Jewish history from about 1500BC (I have to check that).
“The texts and words can lose or change meaning during translation.” This is true. Also, some people have different interpretations of what words mean even in todays religious communities: Ask what “grace” and “salvation” means to christians and so-called christians and you most likely will get two different meanings; but the same nomenclature. Even in similar denominations. However, if you look into christian scholasticism ; you will find that there is no end to academic resources for determining what these manuscripts and texts had to say. And that most authoritative sources differ very little; if not in doctrine; in what the biblical texts actually say. Compare an accepted Catholic version with an evangelical edition and they say pretty much the same thing. The idea that there is mutability in these texts is WAY OVERBLOWN.
I do believe Dr.Canuck is being intentionally very dishonest with you, Bruce. Also, he takes a lot on faith anyway; which renders his definition of “belief” inconsequential.
(1) Dr.Canuck ; do you accept the Greek Classical age? None of which is substantiated by manuscript histories of more than a handful of documents and fragments. We have the Dead Sea Scrolls that establish the Jewish Old Testament as ESTABLISHED and WHOLE prior to the time of Christ and the Septuagint translation before it(400-500) years BC… (2) We have HUNDREDS of same-content documents dating to the 2nd Century AD which attest to the content of the New Testament. We literally have THOUSANDS of New Testament manuscripts lending historic credibility to the historicity of the Bible account. (3) We have EYEWITNESS accounts of events; which are historically verified by contemporary secular writers.
Bruce, your post a few up contains a number of assumptions which are not true: “The winner writes the history”: The Christians were not the “winners” until Constantine, with few exceptions. And the FULL Biblical canon was already established by then. “The Bible is a hash of spurious and illegitimate documents”: Again : the Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint testify to the full Old Testament by 500BC; which is even more remarkable when secular historians start the whole Jewish history from about 1500BC (I have to check that). “The texts and words can lose or change meaning during translation.” This is true. Also, some people have different interpretations of what words mean even in todays religious communities: Ask what “grace” and “salvation” means to christians and so-called christians and you most likely will get two different meanings; but the same nomenclature. Even in similar denominations. However, if you look into christian scholasticism ; you will find that there is no end to academic resources for determining what these manuscripts and texts had to say. And that most authoritative sources differ very little; if not in doctrine; in what the biblical texts actually say. Compare an accepted Catholic version with an evangelical edition and they say pretty much the same thing. The idea that there is mutability in these texts is WAY OVERBLOWN.
I do believe Dr.Canuck is being intentionally very dishonest with you, Bruce. Also, he takes a lot on faith anyway; which renders his definition of “belief” inconsequential.