Jesus Could Have Walked on Ice, Scientist Says

[Midnightrider]

Originally Posted by Toxick

I fail to see what difference the intent of the document makes towards its acceptance of authenticity.




No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I didn't even hint at anything like that.

I endorsed the acceptance of the modern Bible as adequate representations of the original : based on the exact same precidents accepted and used for other (secular) documents: and I believe the argument is reinforced by the coincident accuracy that was unarguably proven by other scientific criteria (viz: the dead sea scrolls which indicate that biblical scribes have unerringly maintained the integrity of the Old Testament for at least the past 1900-2100 years).







Well, I'm not here to proselytize - I was posting simple facts to dispute a claim that was made. That you choose to dismiss my argument out of hand is fine by me. But it does signify the end of my participation in this conversation.

I'm just saying, that just because a story has been accurately translated, doesn't mean that it is 100% true and accurate. The storys of the illiad (odessey) have been meticulously scribed and transated from ancient texts and before that related by poets through story telling. But does that fact that these story have been proven to have been accurately repeated make them accurate as to the facts? I watched a very interesting show on the stories of homer and the trojan war, and it was shown through numerous means that the illiad was based in fact, and that troy was a real place as were most of the persons referenced in the story. Does this mean that the sirens depicted in the story had supernatural abilities and lured sailors to their deaths? Does this mean that a giant cyclops terrorized them?

Or how about this, what of all the Gods spoken of in these texts? what makes these ancient gods less real? The stories indicating their existance are numerous, have been translated accurately, and predate any of the gospels.

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by Midnightrider

I'm just saying, that just because a story has been accurately translated, doesn't mean that it is 100% true and accurate.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Midnightrider

But does that fact that these story have been proven to have been accurately repeated make them accurate as to the facts?

Does it PROVE it? No.

But if you're willing to accept the fact that these stories were accurately transcribed, and are acceptable representations of the original authors' works, then let me address something I addressed in one of my first posts on the subject:

The books of the Old Testament stands or falls on whether they accurately predict future events (i.e. the coming of the Messiah): Which - if the New Testament is to be believed - it did.

It is my opinion that the New Testament is to be believed because the people who wrote the New Testament were not religious zealots. They were writing about things they saw happening. They were men who would have known if all this was a lie or a made up story. Yet, all of them were tortured and martyred rather than change thier stories or admit they were fabrications. I am simply not willing to accept that they would have died before admitting they were lying!

To use your Illiad comparison: Would Homer allow himself to be tortured and killed because he refused to admit that the Illiad was anything besides a (really cool) story?

Every religion has zealots - and zealots cheerfully die for what they believe - but nobody - NOBODY - willingly gives up their life for what he KNOWS is a lie.


I believe this.

These are the facts that directly underlie my subscription to Christianity. I used to be an agnostic, however I find the above - and all the arguments I've made in this thread - to be more than compelling. Maybe that makes me a bad Christian - because I required the above evidence, rather than accepting everything on blind faith - but I've never been one for blind faith. 'Sides, the LORD saith: Come, let us reason together.