Hey Ted, thanks for commenting and thanks for the kind remarks. Yea, I thought the picture of John was intense. I guess so. My intent was just to share his primary points in response to the question and to leave readers with the link for the rest. Cheers, Jesse

“You cannot go from the claim that a work was transmitted with 99.5% accuracy to the conclusion that it is historically reliable (as you seem to do in the paragraph starting with \"in the end....\").”

David, I’m beginning to think that you don’t actually read my comments. What I said to Brandon was this,

“To determine the legitimacy of any historical document, experts generally use a process called The Bibliographic Test. Basically, experts determine the reliability of any given document by considering the number of manuscripts and the time elapsed between them and the originals.”

Brandon and I have been talking specifically about the reliability or unreliability of the Bible itself as a piece of literature in history; not the historical accuracy of its contents.

Please be more careful when reading comments and attributing misinformation to what was or was not said. Thanks for understanding, Jesse.

“Thanks for the link! I had began to read that some time ago, but did not complete it for one reason or another. Just finished it.”

No problem buddy. Thanks for taking the time to read through it.

“I simply ask the question as to how we know these particular writings are in-fact reliable to their originals. Seeing as though we do not possess any originals, it seems an impossibility to state that the texts we read today are reliable to the originals…As a blanket statement, I can agree that there are many manuscripts that point to, what some believe as, the validity of happenings in the NT. However, among those 25,000 manuscripts, how many errors and variations do they contain? Scholars have documented some 200,000+ errors (intentional or otherwise) within those 25,000 manuscripts.”

Great question and I see the hang-up.

To determine the legitimacy of any historical document, experts generally use a process called The Bibliographic Test (see C. Sanders). This is the test employed on any work of antiquity that does not have an original existing copy.

Basically, experts determine the reliability of any given document by considering the number of manuscripts and the time elapsed between them and the originals.

First, as we’ve already touched on, there are thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament. With so many manuscripts available, there are actually no other works in history that come close to the New Testament . Not only do we have a trunk full of Greek manuscripts, there are over 9,000 manuscripts in Arabic, Syriac, Latin, etc…, that add further support (see my link from before).

Second, the New Testament manuscripts are within 25 years of their original counterparts. Again, no historical documents can compare.

Now, in one sense, the 200,000 figure you allude to is correct. However, these are not errors, these are variances. Huge difference.

Here are how variances are determined: “These [variances] are spread throughout more than 5,300 manuscripts, so that a variant spelling of one letter of one word in one verse in 2,000 manuscripts is counted as 2,000 [variances]” (Geisler, 532).

Bruce Metzger – someone you should read on this topic – estimated that the New Testament as we have it today is 99.5% accurate based upon the Bibliographical Test. And again, if you were to juxtapose other historical documents you would see that this level of accuracy is unmatched.

What is more, of these variances not one of them affect in any shape, way, fashion, or form a single doctrine from the Bible. This is why I don’t think there is any reason to pause in your response.

In the end, to dismiss the Bible as a historically unreliable and untrustworthy document would be the same as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In other words, we might as well do away with any other historical piece of literature because none of them are as validated as the New Testament.

Maybe I just need to let you treat me to a cup of coffee to finish this conversation?

Cheers, Jesse.

“I never said the Book of Revelations was written by the apostle John.”

You must not have read my comment, again. I didn’t say you attributed authorship to John. I said your example is offensive and inappropriate.

“And you\'re ignoring the substance of my comments.”

No I’m not. I’m just choosing not to engage in a discourteous conversation

Cheers, Jesse.

“You can\'t substantiate a claim that the Bible is infallible with an unsubstantiated claim that Jesus rose from the dead.”

The funny thing is you’ll never be able to prove your own claims since you’ll never find His body = P

Besides, there’s more than enough extra-Biblical material evidence that says otherwise. See my link in my response to Brandon for additional information.

Cheers, Jesse

David, again, you have developed a boat load of claims that you're not substantiating in any way. I'll respect you and your opinion, but your comments are uncalled for in regards to the Apostle John. You'll need to refrain from such elementary statements in the future.

"credible evidence"

See, unlike Joseph Smith and Muhammad, Jesus Christ substantiated His claims by rising from the dead.

Now, if you're going to make an extraordinary amount of loaded statements, you should pay the same respect that you ask of me in actually verifying them.

Cheers, Jesse

Hey Brandon. Good to hear from you. Hope you’re doing well.

While we’re chatting about this, here is a link to a post that I wrote on different facets of validating the historical validity of the Bible. It’s not exhaustive, but I’m assuming this in my response:
http://reformedandreforming.org/2009/10/01/for-th...

“This argument starts with the premis that the Bible is in-fact a trustworthy collection of works. How does one prove this collection of works is reliable, trustworthy, and/or even authoritative?”

Yes, the Classical Method does assume the reliability and trustworthiness of the Bible as you presuppose its incredibility in your own position.

Strictly speaking as a piece of literature, you would determine the validity of the Bible the same way you would any piece of literature. To discredit the historicity of the Bible would be to discredit the historocity of history itself (Whoa that was redundant). For me, I learned that we do not have the ability to casually disregard the Bible as an old, antiquated book, for to do so would require us to disregard all other books written as the same.

“In my personal studies, I have found that many textual critics would agree that what we have come to know as the Bible is not the same as the originally penned words. They would also submit that because we have, with 100 percent accuracy, none of the original documents, but copies of copies of copies of documents, it is extremely difficult to say for certain that the copies which we have today are unaltered from the originals.”

First off, I hope the sources you look too are more reliable than the ones you used in understanding the oral tradition of the Ancient Near East : p

Those are really lofty claims. What source(s) are you relying upon to justify your position that the sources we have are so unreliable? What you’ll see from the link I provided above, there is much more evidence to prove the validity of the Bible than other ancient documents.

For me Brandon, it takes more faith in a lesser god not to be in the validity of the Bible. In the end, its reliability and trustworthiness are rooted within God Himself. I like what Martin Kahler once said, “We do not believe in Christ because we believe in the Bible, but we believe in the Bible because we believe in Christ.”

Dave, I’m sorry, but your example doesn’t follow the premises above, namely Premise C. The historicity of a document does not validate its authority, but its legitimacy.

Thanks for sharing a little about yourself. I appreciate the gesture.

“Don\'t complain that I point out that your definitions don\'t fit your claims. Perhaps, instead of dictionary definitions, you should simply explain what you mean by them in your own words. That is, after all, what I asked you----what you have in mind when using those words.”

You must have glossed over what I commented.

“But religious humanism isn\'t being taught/endorsed in our (American) schools. Nor is secular humanism. If you think otherwise I\'d be interested in seeing evidence to that effect. As for an example of evidence pointing the opposite direction\"

I don’t have access to my materials at the moment, but in the meantime, here are some articles that tackle this issue:
http://www.contenderministries.org/humanism/human...
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-g002.ht...
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/newageed.h...

“And am happy to debate and discuss those values (and others not mentioned for the sake of brevity) any time another may disagree with them.”

If you’ve read my about page, I imagine you realize I disagree with the foundation you’re working from. I would love the opportunity to talk more about it, but due to my obligations with family, work, and school, time does not permit me too. I’ll do my best to respond to your comments.

\"What sort of society, with what sort of values, is it sensible to want to live in\"

I have no qualms with a plurality of positions within the democratic process, so I would welcome your viewpoint when determining the future of our country. My only misgiving in this process is the exclusion of exclusive religious presuppositions, such as Christianity. In my opinion, this defies the First Amendment.