Should the New Testament of the Holy Bible be Considered Reliable History?

Barnardot

@Jweishuhn ; Even most atheist historians will attest to the fact that as a whole, the NT is seen as historically proven. 

Whatever thats supposed to mean. Yes it is historically proven. but the contents of are not proven one single bit. It was written 1000s of years ago by annonymous writers and taken from different texts then translated and transcribed several times over. Not one bit of its contents can be verified. The book is not even classified as non fiction. It is classed as a reference book only. If any scholar wants to do a paper on history he would use history books where the contents have been properly verified and all the references given. Both testaments of the Bible have no verification what so ever except that they were written and what is written in them is heaps of dog crap.

Jweishuhn

@Barnardot

I have to say, I am a little confused by you remarks. You first attest to the fact that it is historically proven and then turn around and say "Not one bit of its content can be verified." I am not sure how written documents can be historically proven but not be verified. I would like to give you just a few examples of what has been verified that is written in the Bible both Old and New Testament. 

1. The Moabite Stone (Mesha Stela) was discovered in 1868, this stone is very significant as it bears witness to exactly what we read in 2 Kings 3 in the Old Testament. Its words describe the war between the Moabites and Israel. Which again is what we read in 2 Kings 3. Its inscriptions also contain the earliest known reference outside of the Bible to YHWH, which is the God of the Israelites. 

2. Cyrus Cylinder was discovered among the ruins of Babylon and is the declaration by the Persian king Cyrus the Great allowing the exiled Israelites to return to their homeland in order that they may return to their ways of worshiping their God. Cyrus is mentioned by name in the Book of Ezra and is also found in Isaiah 45:1 which contains a prophecy about Cyrus being the one who allowed Israel to return home after a long exile. 

3. Tele Dan Stele: This stone was discovered in 1993 an on it rests inscriptions referencing King David, who is the famous king that is in the book of 2 Samuel. 

4. Babylonian Chronicles: These are a series of clay tablets that explain in great detail the time of King Nebuchadnezzar and their concurring of Jerusalem. It points to the deportation of Israel's king Jehoiachin, and how Babylon appointed them a new king by the name of Zedekiah. All events that are found in the Old Testament. It even has the precise date of Jerusalem's falling to be March 16, 597 BC.

5. Pilate Stone: In 1961 a limestone block was discovered that had the inscription that was part of a dedication to Tiberius Caesar, by "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea". This happens to be the Pontius Pilate who was prefect of Judea during Jesus' day the same one who had Jesus crucified. Pilate is also mentioned in several other non-biblical texts that have been discovered over the years.

6. Caiaphas Ossuary: Caiaphas was the high priest who presided over Jesus' trial. He was mentioned in the New Testament, and by a Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. This Ossuary was discovered in 1990 in a first century tomb.

7. Delphi Inscription (or Gallio Inscription): This inscription was discovered at the Temple of Apollo in Delphi, Greece. It was a message written by the Roman emperor Claudius, it mentions a man by the name of Gallio who was proconsul at the time. The same Gallio that is mentioned in the New Testament book of Acts (Acts 18:12). Because of the dating that went along with the inscription and the connection of to the book of Acts. Scholars have been able to date the time of when the Apostle Paul was brought before the tribunal in Corinth which is AD 51. 

I could list a whole lot more of historical discoveries that very much point to the validity of the contents in both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.

The fact is that if it was not for the Bible, many historical discoveries would never have happened.  

As you also mentioned, "It was written 1000s of years ago by annonymous writers and taken from different texts then translated and transcribed several times over." I have to point out that most of the books of the Bible have a very evident author, most of them are not anonymous, some are, I will give you that, but there has been much work done to determine the authors of the books that are claimed to be known. I will also give you the fact that the writings were translated and transcribed several times over, that is partially why we have such a rich amount of manuscripts, however, this fact alone, does not negate the historical validity of what was written. There has never been any kind of historical documents that have gone through the kind of scrutiny that the writings of the Bible have gone through. Both done within the Christian community and outside of the Christian community. And it has yet to be proven that the people, places, and events are fictional thing, more and more evidence emerges leaning in favor of the accounts that we read about in the Bible.

With that being said, I would like to pose the question again, and make it clear, that even though the Bible is not considered a "history book," but one that many scholars both religious and secular utilize in their studies. Can you still argue that within its pages there is no authentic or reliable historical value? If so why?    

Barnardot

@Jweishuhn ;I have to say, I am a little confused by you remarks. You first attest to the fact that it is historically proven and then turn around and say

Did I say "Yes it is historically proven. but the contents of are not proven one single bit."?

Did I say also that the Bible does not even get a non-fiction classification?

Just because there happens to be a few references in the Bible to places and some events that have been verified it doesnt give any credence what so ever to the entire Bible which is completely riddled with mistakes and made up anecdotes. It has no credibility at all. 

The age of the universe and life as in the Bible are proven wrong. The formation of life as given in the Bible is proven completely wrong. There is not one single peace of evidence to show that the earth was flooded and the story of Noah is so ridiculous its not even funny as is the story of Sodom and Gamora. A few references to stones and inscriptions does not give any authenticity as to the truth of the Bibles contents in the light of the fact that it is completely over whelmed by glaring mistakes and inaccuracies. Apart from the fact that there are no writers accredited if such a manuscript were to be given to a publisher nower days it would not even get past the shredder after reading the first page. I called it a heap of crap and my comment is 100% valid.

Jweishuhn

@Barnardot

So I get that you are not agreeing to the religious basis of the Bible as a whole, that is not what this discussion is about. 

When you speak however, about the "mistakes" that are presented in the Bible, like: Creation, The Flood, and Sodom and Gamora, with those remarks, I am going to go out on a limb and say that you are a supporter of the evolution theory. To which is your rite. But to flat out state that "There is not one single peace of evidence" tells me that you are either completely oblivious to the plethora of evidence that has been discovered to show such events did happen, or you are completely closed-minded to the evidence that has been presented. For me, I have very much seen both sides of the evidence. My entire life I, like most other people, probably including yourself, I was only taught about evolution, without being provided the evidence for any other theories out there. It was not until I was in my early 30s that I began to study and research other theories, especially the ones that aligned with what the Bible teaches. But before I decided to go on that journey, I can honestly say that even before I became a serious Christian and all I had learned was evolution, there were several things that did not make any sense to me. The biggest thing being that mankind evolved from fish, and that our massive universe came from an explosion, that came from literally nothing. If you are cool with accepting those things without questioning them, that is your choice, but again just because you believe in a theory that has been presented outside of the Bible, it does not mean that what the Bible teaches is completely false. The truth is, we will never be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt how we got here and that is a fact. You place your faith in the evolution theory and I place mine in what the Bible teaches along with the historical, philosophical, and scientific evidence. 

I would really encourage you to broaden your horizons. Find out for yourself what great scientists, historians, and researchers are discovering about the Bible.

I can tell you that evidence for a worldwide flood does exist. One of the biggest pieces of evidence for this is the fossil records. For example, Trees have been discovered that go through multiple sedimentary layers, showing that they were buried in a short period of time. Also, creatures that only survive in water have been discovered at the top of mountains. Many scientists believe places such as the Grand Canyon are evidence for the flood. Then there have been some archeological discoveries from other tribes and populace outside of the Bible that speak of a massive flood.

Sodom and Gamora was actually discovered recently and guess what, it shows much evidence of being destroyed by a cosmic blast that dispersed salt and fire. 

When it comes to creation, there is not enough time to list out evidence for what we have discovered. 

As I have worked through your remarks a little, I would like to get back to the main question at hand. Which was about the historicity of the New Testament. Not religion, or the Old Testament which are important things to discuss, but not what this topic is about. 

I would like to close with some of the things that I presented in the opening statements for this debate. 

When looking at the people, events, and places that are recorded in the books of the NT why is it so hard to accept what the books record as history? We know that there has never been any other documents in antiquity that have gone through the same rigor as the ones connected to the NT. A fact that does not appear to phase you.

I would really like to see what evidence you can present that shows any other historical documents that record events we claim to be a part of history that has more evidence than that of the NT. I would also like to challenge you to present evidence to your claim that the NT is "riddled with mistakes." I will attest to the fact that minor differences can be seen throughout the the thousands of manuscripts that have been discovered, but those differences are so minor, which is to be expected, so they do not and should not discredit the NT. The differences found within the manuscripts that worldwide scholars utilize is less than 1 percent. and many of those difference consist of examples such as changing the order in how "Jesus Christ" is written to "Christ Jesus". Things that do not fringe on or alter the major basis of what was originally written.