Please give me your exact sources.
2007-11-16 09:53:01 · 14 answers · asked by larissa 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
we know that pontius pilate was prefect of judaea between 26 and 36.
in fact much of the fine detail of the bible has been corroborated by later archaeology.
of course there is also a great deal of contradiction between what archaeology has discovered, and what the bible tells us. (nazareth seems not to have existed in new testament times).
the bible viewed critically seems a mixture of fact and misunderstanding, liberally garnished with fantasy.
the histories of herodotus are exactly the same - but nobody gets excited over those.
2007-11-16 10:11:11 · answer #1 · answered by synopsis 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
1. The Bible is 98 percent textually pure. Through all the copies of the Biblical manuscripts of the entire Bible, only 1% has any question about it. Nothing in all of the ancient writings of the entire world approaches the accuracy of the biblical documents.
2. The 1 percent that is in question does not affect doctrine. The areas of interest are called variants, and they consist mainly in variations of wording and spelling.
3. The NT has over 5000 supporting Greek manuscripts existing today with another 20,000 manuscripts in other languages. Some of the manuscript evidence dates to within 100 years of the original writing. There is less than a 1% textual variation in the NT manuscripts.
4. Some of the supporting manuscripts of the NT are:
1. John Rylands MS written around 130 A.D., the oldest
existing fragment of the gospel of John
2. Bodmer Papyrus II (150-200 A.D.)
3. Chester Beatty Papyri (200 A.D.), contains major
portions of the NT
4. Codex Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.), contains nearly all the
Bible.
5. Codex Sinaiticus (350 A.D.), contains almost all the NT
and over half of the OT
2007-11-16 09:59:30 · answer #2 · answered by BrotherMichael 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Just circular reasoning.
To BrotherM: Define textual accuracy. Just because someone claims to have a 98% accuracy with existing documents does not mean those documents themselves are a valid record of history. This is just another myth propagated by Christians. Many manuscripts, especially from Gnostic theology, have been omitted from the modern New Testament.
2007-11-16 10:00:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is some archaeological evidence of some battles that were fought that are mentioned in the Bible.
I don't have any exact sources at my finger tips, but I am working on my degree in Anthropology and Religious Studies, so you'll have to take my word for it.
2007-11-16 09:59:34 · answer #4 · answered by Miss 6 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Glad you asked. there are several books that I can refer you to..Messiah by Grant Jeffery, No Wonder They Call Him Saviour by Max Lucado, The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel, Evidence For the Defense by Josh MacDowell, The Acheology Bible, Plent Eart 2000A.D by Hal Lindsey. Hope this helps.
2007-11-16 09:59:21 · answer #5 · answered by ShadowCat 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I'd say the copyright page is pretty accurate.
)o( Blessed Be!
2007-11-16 10:52:10 · answer #6 · answered by whillow95 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How about 330 prophecies that came to pass flawlessly?
Or the fact that it's God's word and God is perfect?
2007-11-16 10:20:44 · answer #7 · answered by disciple 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Nope
2007-11-16 09:56:47 · answer #8 · answered by Laff -Hugs 4all- 5 · 5⤊ 4⤋
Is there any proof your high school history book is accurate?
2007-11-16 10:04:31 · answer #9 · answered by Laska 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Nope.
2007-11-16 09:57:59 · answer #10 · answered by oldernwiser 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋