Insane_Duck
Because ducks are just awesome like that.
First Link = Less than convincing.
1. Do you have a less (obviously) biased website with cited sources?
2. This mentioned that the oldest OT in existence is 2,200 years old. (and not even all the books date this old) This leaves literally thousands of years (if you assume the events were transcribed by Moses, which isn't the historical view) of oral tradition. There is no mention of scribes recording the OT back further than 200 B.C. (according to the article) And the super careful recording didn't come about until a millennium after that. In this space of time there was the possibility of huge changes, especially in the illiterate back-alleys of the middle east.
3. There was plenty of space between the writing down and the actual events that happened in the NT. Before this there was only hearsay and anecdotal accounts.
4. There isn't any Roman evidence to back-up a census, the crucifixion, or any miracles. (as well as tonnes of missing evidence from extra-biblical sources regarding OT events) There are only a few dubious non-affiliated sources (such as Josephus) who didn't live at the time of Christ, and historians now doubt parts of their accounts. (accounts they would have gleaned from the hearsay +100 years down the line) And they also only indirectly mention NT events, excluding any miracles.
I'll read the second link later.
1. Do you have a less (obviously) biased website with cited sources?
2. This mentioned that the oldest OT in existence is 2,200 years old. (and not even all the books date this old) This leaves literally thousands of years (if you assume the events were transcribed by Moses, which isn't the historical view) of oral tradition. There is no mention of scribes recording the OT back further than 200 B.C. (according to the article) And the super careful recording didn't come about until a millennium after that. In this space of time there was the possibility of huge changes, especially in the illiterate back-alleys of the middle east.
3. There was plenty of space between the writing down and the actual events that happened in the NT. Before this there was only hearsay and anecdotal accounts.
4. There isn't any Roman evidence to back-up a census, the crucifixion, or any miracles. (as well as tonnes of missing evidence from extra-biblical sources regarding OT events) There are only a few dubious non-affiliated sources (such as Josephus) who didn't live at the time of Christ, and historians now doubt parts of their accounts. (accounts they would have gleaned from the hearsay +100 years down the line) And they also only indirectly mention NT events, excluding any miracles.
I'll read the second link later.
Upvote
0