Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Why do you attack the reliability of the Bible even though it is more accurate than any other historical book?

The New Testament has 99.5% textual accuracy. No document in history has even come close to that. There are 5600 original manuscripts written within the first 100 years. The total supporting texts are 24,000. I will post a link to a chart.

If you compare that with the writing of Plato, Sophocles, and Aristotle which barely have any manuscripts, and they span a time period of a thousand years you would have to agree that the NT is more reliable and accurate than ANY other historical text in existence!!!

You can go and look at the actual manuscripts and translate them yourself to see that they are accurate. This was not something that Constantine just made up 300 years later.

I promise I am not trying to cause drama. I just wonder why no one ever talks about this. When you comment, you can say what you want and give links to your info, but please be nice. :)

Answer Question

Asked by Cinnamon-mom at 2:04 PM on May. 4, 2009 in Religion & Beliefs

Level 7 (183 Credits)
Answers (40)
  • Cinnamon-mom

    Answer by Cinnamon-mom at 2:05 PM on May. 4, 2009

  • I do not attack the reliability of the bible but I just got attacked for saying I am enjoying learning about the Bible. I do not think they moms here so much attack it they just do not like talking about it.

    I do agree, very much of the bible has been proven accurate.

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:09 PM on May. 4, 2009

  • Which version is accurate?
    That is an issue I know some have.

    Answer by Amaranth361 at 2:14 PM on May. 4, 2009

  • It would be accurate if they had left all the books in it to be left up for a more rounded interpretation. The Bible it self is biased not well rounded in the least.

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:17 PM on May. 4, 2009

  • I do not believe therefor to me it is simply a fictional book written by modern man.

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:19 PM on May. 4, 2009

  • modern man? Modern man not even of this century?????

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:20 PM on May. 4, 2009

  • for that time period. First hand accounts from other time periods are used every day. I am a student of history and there are huge amount of texts available that are primary sources that are not the bible. What do you mean textual accuracy? Plato, Sophocles, and Aristotle, we lost their works when the Library of Alexandra burned. I would not use the bible to write about Roman or Middle Eastern history. There are plenty of valid primary sources about Romain times that are not riddle with dogma. I just did a paper about women and warfare. The is so much written about Rome that is not found in the bible. Does the bible cover the Celts, barbarian Germans, Gaul. Never mind the writings of the East. They bible covers only a small portion of history of a small portion of the population of the Old World.

    Answer by fireball1978 at 2:21 PM on May. 4, 2009

  • It's only historically accurate if you happen to read it and believe all that stuff happened.

    Answer by metalcowgirl34 at 2:22 PM on May. 4, 2009

  • As translated from the greek it is largely the same. It doesn't mean it is the truth. It doesn't mean that it is the word of God.

    Answer by kara_g. at 2:22 PM on May. 4, 2009

  • I agree with anon :17 in the idea that I would be more inclined to have more "faith" in the accuracy of the bible had all the books been left in so we could judge for ourselves and not have those in power decide for us.

    Answer by Amaranth361 at 2:22 PM on May. 4, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.