Creationists and other science haters? Now without using carbon dating or any other scientific method?

Question

Can you prove, WITHOUT the use of carbon dating or any other scientific method that the texts of the New Testament weren't written in the fifteenth century? when the first published copy of the bible(latin vulgate) 1450-1456 were printed on the Gutenburg press? Can you prove that any of the scrolls and texts and contemporary accounts weren't created in mass at that time? And that modern scholars aren't just lying about the ages of the scrolls? Sure the bible lists historical events but who is to say that the people couldnt write any of that in 1456? if you say Josephus or the council of nicea or any other contemporary source PROVE without carbon dating that they were written anytime before the 1400's. Remember you can't use science in anyway for this challenge. prove that any of these writings weren't produced at the same time with a "Past tense narrative".
Note: you cannot use the bible to prove the bible.

Answer 1

I love you so much I wish I could have babies with you!

Answer 2

I think what they meant was they personally tried to repeat the experiments done and came up with wildly different results. Anyone who has sat in a science class and tried to do the experiment the teacher demonstrates has observed that for a significant proportion of the class the experimental data doesn't conform to the expected results, sometimes even the teacher's experiment goes wrong and an apology has to be made "oh something went wrong, I'm not sure what I did wrong". Some people when they get "anomalous data" refuse to chalk it up to a mistake somewhere in the way the experiment was done and instead use that as evidence that the theory that the experiment is intended to demonstrate is itself flawed. Personally I have a problem with radioactive dating (regardless of the isotope used). Radioactive dating methods rely on the random decay of unstable isotopes which though unpredictable in that we can't predict which isotope will decay we can predict that half the number of isotopes will decay over a given amount of time (half life) and we can know what the by products of that decay is. So by measuring the proportion of the radioactive isotope to the by products of the decay we can estimate the age of the source material (all well and good). The problem is the decay rate follows a logarithmic curve. Logarithmic curves are extremely steep in two extrmes with a relatively small window of accuracy. Therefore when radioactive dating methods are used to age things that are very young or very old an incredibly small error in measurement can result in an incredibly large error in the estimation of the date.

Answer 3

First I do not hate science, I hate philosophy being made into a science and then taught as science with a blind faith that of course it is correct. I have no problem with chemistry, physics and biology, however when you try to turn the philosophy of evolution into a science and teach it as the only fact then I have a problem.

Now as to your question: Where would the idea come from before hand to create these stories. The only way something could have been printed and accepted was if they had something to copy from and then spread it out to all the people. By the time of Gutenberg there are 1400+ years of records that existed at the time. That in addition to some of the fragments being dated on the fragment. We also have writings from people in history who we know when they lived because of other records that have been found.

If you want to question this then how about questioning all the other works from antiquity because we have even fewer copies of these. The foundations of history, philosophy, science, mathematic, medicine, law and literature would not exist. The problem is that they do, if you can accept those documents then you also have to accept Christian religious texts as historically accurate documents.

Also the languages we have copies from, some had died out by the time of the Gutenberg Bible and so unless these people were either brilliant or amazingly lucky those documents are a form of proof that they were around before the 1400's.

Answer 4

They'd be all for carbon dating if it would PROVE their standpoint. Since it doesn't, they slammed the door to it. That really is as simple as it gets. They want to believe what they want to believe, and they aren't about to let a few pesky facts change anything. It's my theory that this bull-headedness is due to the deep realization that once one begins to release superstition, they then have to start thinking for themselves. They are afraid of that! They've never been taught how to think--all their lives they've been TOLD WHAT to think. This is why so many can tell you what the Bible says in layman's terms (this is what they heard at church), yet act bewildered when you point out some of the more vicious and violent verses to them (they have never read the Bible--doing so is taking one's religion into their own hands, thus risking discovery of flaws). Churches cherry-pick, selecting only the ripest of the ripe for their purposes. The disgusting and ruthless passages are omitted... unless they serve to push an agenda.

Answer 5

That's exactly what some skeptics used to think of the book of Daniel. The prophecies contained in it which outline the history of Israel during the so called period of 400 years of silence are so detailed, many skeptics thought it was written after the facts. Well, that was until archeology proved them wrong. Again.
When will they learn?

Answer 6

Awesome Question!

Answer 7

Don't tell ME what I cannot do missy.

God is not a man that He EVER has to lie:

Gen 1:1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else.

Answer 8

Wow look at how mad the sheep got! They don't like it when people challenge their intellect. Obviously you don't mean all Christian think that...because I know a few Christians who accept evolution. But Creationists make me sick to my stomach.

Answer 9

Excuse me. Could you repeat the question?

Answer 10

Why is it so important for you to prove or disprove Gods existence to believers? If you don't believe...ok, if I do believe...ok. Live and let live. And why would I hate science because I believe in God?