• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the Bible Accurate? — with Dan Wallace

Daisy

Daisy

"Make sure of the more important things."
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
55,575
Reaction score
16,813
Location
Down South
Gender
Female
Why we can trust the hundreds of different copies of manuscripts...
"2%, that's how much the manuscripts have changed over 1,500 hundred years"...
Click to expand...



Dan Wallace, of The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, takes a closer look at the fascinating process of biblical research that helps reveal the foundations and credibility of the timeless wisdom of the Bible. Gain a deeper understanding of what is revealed in the ancient manuscripts, what Jesus' life and words say about the Bible, and what history reveals about the accuracy of the biblical text.
 
Elvira said:
Why we can trust the hundreds of different copies of manuscripts...



Dan Wallace, of The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, takes a closer look at the fascinating process of biblical research that helps reveal the foundations and credibility of the timeless wisdom of the Bible. Gain a deeper understanding of what is revealed in the ancient manuscripts, what Jesus' life and words say about the Bible, and what history reveals about the accuracy of the biblical text.
Click to expand...


There are many English speaking bibles, so what manuscript do you find to be credibility. The King James Bible is over 400 years old; the current Catholic Bible was redesigned during the 1990's with the English texts. Is the English bible more correct to say a German bible?
 
Atheist 2020 said:
There are many English speaking bibles, so what manuscript do you find to be credibility. The King James Bible is over 400 years old; the current Catholic Bible was redesigned during the 1990's with the English texts. Is the English bible more correct to say a German bible?
Click to expand...

It does not matter the date of the translation as long as the translation is taken from the original Hebrew and Greek languages...that is what makes the translation most accurate...
 
Elvira said:
It does not matter the date of the translation as long as the translation is taken from the original Hebrew and Greek languages...that is what makes the translation most accurate...
Click to expand...

We have the King James Bible and we have the English speaking Catholic -- they are so different with each other. One has to be correct, and witch one is correct.
 
Elvira said:
Why we can trust the hundreds of different copies of manuscripts...



Dan Wallace, of The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, takes a closer look at the fascinating process of biblical research that helps reveal the foundations and credibility of the timeless wisdom of the Bible. Gain a deeper understanding of what is revealed in the ancient manuscripts, what Jesus' life and words say about the Bible, and what history reveals about the accuracy of the biblical text.
Click to expand...


You're assuming that the original manuscripts are accurate.
 
Atheist 2020 said:
We have the King James Bible and we have the English speaking Catholic -- they are so different with each other. One has to be correct, and witch one is correct.
Click to expand...

Do your own research...I've already told you what I think of the KJV...
 
Elvira said:
Why we can trust the hundreds of different copies of manuscripts...



Dan Wallace, of The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, takes a closer look at the fascinating process of biblical research that helps reveal the foundations and credibility of the timeless wisdom of the Bible. Gain a deeper understanding of what is revealed in the ancient manuscripts, what Jesus' life and words say about the Bible, and what history reveals about the accuracy of the biblical text.
Click to expand...


Why on earth would anyone care what Dan Wallace has to say?

WTF, dude?
 
pinqy said:
You're assuming that the original manuscripts are accurate.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what the video is saying...they are so similar, they are most certainly accurate to what was originally said and done...
 
Elvira said:
Do your own research...I've already told you what I think of the KJV...
Click to expand...

I do not speak Greek, nor did Jesus and his following, nor did they speak early 17th century English or 21st century English. And when the text of the earliest bible was written and accepted, it was in the 4th century.
 
Atheist 2020 said:
I do not speak Greek, nor did Jesus and his following, nor did they speak early 17th century English or 21st century English. And when the text of the earliest bible was written and accepted, it was in the 4th century.
Click to expand...

Educate yourself...that is my advice...:roll:
 
Elvira said:
That is exactly what the video is saying...they are so similar, they are most certainly accurate to what was originally said and done...
Click to expand...

No, the video is saying that despite the copies and re-copies and franslations, we have a relatively accurate picture of the original texts. That doesn't mean the original texts accurately described what actually happened.
 
Elvira said:
Educate yourself...that is my advice...:roll:
Click to expand...

I left the Southern Baptist during the 1980's. I became a agnostic and with my personal studying, I finally became a atheist only a few years ago.
 
Atheist 2020 said:
I do not speak Greek, nor did Jesus and his following, nor did they speak early 17th century English or 21st century English. And when the text of the earliest bible was written and accepted, it was in the 4th century.
Click to expand...

Jesus and many of if not most or all of his followers undoubtedly knew at least some Greek. It's what the Romans in that region spoke.
 
Atheist 2020 said:
I left the Southern Baptist during the 1980's. I became a agnostic and with my personal studying, I finally became a atheist only a few years ago.
Click to expand...

And? You still know little about the Bible or its history...btw, you have my sympathies on being an ex SB...that explains a lot...
 
Elvira said:
Why we can trust the hundreds of different copies of manuscripts...



Dan Wallace, of The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, takes a closer look at the fascinating process of biblical research that helps reveal the foundations and credibility of the timeless wisdom of the Bible. Gain a deeper understanding of what is revealed in the ancient manuscripts, what Jesus' life and words say about the Bible, and what history reveals about the accuracy of the biblical text.
Click to expand...


There is no accuracy when consider the supernatural claims of the bible. No amount of scholarship will ever make them 'credible'.
 
Elvira said:
Why we can trust the hundreds of different copies of manuscripts...



Dan Wallace, of The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, takes a closer look at the fascinating process of biblical research that helps reveal the foundations and credibility of the timeless wisdom of the Bible. Gain a deeper understanding of what is revealed in the ancient manuscripts, what Jesus' life and words say about the Bible, and what history reveals about the accuracy of the biblical text.
Click to expand...


His PhD is religious and therefore cannot be applied outside theology. 2% of what total? That 2 % can be a very large number over a very very long time, and please do not forget that religion was controlled by kings and priests ala The Vatican, so interpretations often fit political times as did the King James Bible. Your OP is simply proselytizing again Elvira. Those manuscripts are only as valid as the proof that they rely on for accuracy, and as we know, the spirit cannot be proven, only talked about.

I'm quite sure that Jesus was a real person, like many philosophers, but The Word of God simply has nothing wherewith to anchor it in reality; that could be reliably transcribed.
 
Atheist 2020 said:
We have the King James Bible and we have the English speaking Catholic -- they are so different with each other. One has to be correct, and witch one is correct.
Click to expand...


A witch is an evil woman who casts spells.


The Bible teaches us: "Do not suffer a witch to live"
 
Rich2018 said:
A witch is an evil woman who casts spells.


The Bible teaches us: "Do not suffer a witch to live"
Click to expand...
So a good wo.an who cast sells is ok, and a man who casts spells, God of evil, is ok. Huh. I find that odd
 
pinqy said:
No, the video is saying that despite the copies and re-copies and franslations, we have a relatively accurate picture of the original texts. That doesn't mean the original texts accurately described what actually happened.
Click to expand...

I also think his '2% is a lot of hooey and wishful thinking... with a heavy cherry pick of information.. and then making unreasonable assumptions about that. Then, after filtering what he wants to see, he makes it sound so amazing, which it isn't.
 
RAMOSS said:
I also think his '2% is a lot of hooey and wishful thinking... with a heavy cherry pick of information.. and then making unreasonable assumptions about that. Then, after filtering what he wants to see, he makes it sound so amazing, which it isn't.
Click to expand...

That 2% is a lot more credible than the toilet-variety denials you always come up with.
 
Atheist 2020 said:
I left the Southern Baptist during the 1980's. I became a agnostic and with my personal studying, I finally became a atheist only a few years ago.
Click to expand...

I doubt it was because you discovered any critical flaws in the Gospels.

I'd ask you to identify any person, place, or event in the Gospels that's been shown to be false / fictitious? If you have one just note the scripture #'s and the reason why it's false.
 
Logicman said:
I doubt it was because you discovered any critical flaws in the Gospels.

I'd ask you to identify any person, place, or event in the Gospels that's been shown to be false / fictitious? If you have one just note the scripture #'s and the reason why it's false.
Click to expand...

It was not written by monkeys, it was written by educated men. And we understand the gospels were written in the second half of the first century, not the first half dealing with Jesus himself. It was written in Greek, with a group of men that had a political and social agenda. Jesus and his following had nothing to do with these gospels. In fact, the more you study Jesus, and to find him as a real man -- you understand that Jesus was just a fictitious icon.
 
Logicman said:
That 2% is a lot more credible than the toilet-variety denials you always come up with.
Click to expand...

I notice you are unable to back up your claim with anything but childish rhetoric and immature responses. That does not bode well for the accuracy of the claims.
 
Logicman said:
I doubt it was because you discovered any critical flaws in the Gospels.

I'd ask you to identify any person, place, or event in the Gospels that's been shown to be false / fictitious? If you have one just note the scripture #'s and the reason why it's false.
Click to expand...

You reject any point anyway, without a valid reason, with a bunch of illogical rhetoric that doesn't answer the essential question, or with a claim that is not logical or valid, but think it counters the criticism anyway. You 'kick to the curb and throw under the bus' any valid criticisms.
 
Atheist 2020 said:
It was not written by monkeys, it was written by educated men. And we understand the gospels were written in the second half of the first century, not the first half dealing with Jesus himself. It was written in Greek, with a group of men that had a political and social agenda.
Click to expand...

An agenda to tell the truth. If you say they had a subversive agenda to spread a fairy tale then prove it, and show me why ALL OF THEM were charlatans.

Atheist 2020 said:
Jesus and his following had nothing to do with these gospels.
Click to expand...

Seems to me Jesus was the main focus of the Gospels, and there's good evidence for the traditional authorship. Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship

Atheist 2020 said:
In fact, the more you study Jesus, and to find him as a real man -- you understand that Jesus was just a fictitious icon.
Click to expand...

A "real man" is fictitious? Do you have evidence Jesus was a fictitious icon or is that just your opinion?

I still don't see anything you presented that falsifies even one person, place, or event in the Gospels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom