Yeah, I'm hoping they figure it out sooner rather than later.

Have you tried therapy? I mean every bible scholar agrees they were mostly written a few hundred years latter. But lets get back to important club house stuff how is taking the vote away from women going?

Actually I don't need the Bible to prove the Bible.

For one it stands on it's own and supports itself without any help.

No, a solid case can be made using contemporaneous third party authors. And assembling the known facts of history and human nature.

Remember, logic?

The same logic where apparently putting false pride in ...is now ok to use to justify you ?.....

It was asked before but I'll repeat, cite your sources.

And again why would these non eyewitness later authors a few generations removed fail to mention the most important part?
That the temple was gone when they repeatedly inserted prophetic foretelling that it would be so.

A two thousand year old head fake? For what purpose, to play the really really long game?

Remember, logic?

Fyi standing on its own and supporting its self is literally the Bible proving the Bible

Let's see a raise of hands, how many have read their Josephus?

I mean the same could be said for a multitude of religions and beliefs.... So like ....

Already a two page thread. After ten pages, how many minds are going to be changed? We all know none.

I'm a Christian believer and all that goodness.... But honestly stuff like this is why alot of people don't believe or take religion seriously.
"I'm right your wrong my two thousand year old book says so and all I need is my book to tell me this"

There is lots of pages and fine print, but I have read a lot of it.

Third party, Josephus wrote History of the Jews. He was anything but a Christian and confirms independently the sect of Christos, his word, and the fall of Jerusalem having been a general in the Jewish revolt.

By standing on it's own I mean that it does not fall apart in contradiction of itself. I'm not using it in a verse by verse comparison. Merely pointing out that the timeline it purports is placed within context of other independent writing. So we have to accept that all of the new testament is pre 70AD which places it within a human lifetime of 33AD. IE, eyewitness accounts not a third or fourth generation retelling.

So if we have eyewitness accounts, which are arguably one of the most unreliable of all, why then does the biblical account not contradict itself to a degree to fall apart.

Why would these eyewitnesses not crack under government pressure. Sure folks die for spurious causes all the time but all of them, generations of them?

Scuba, Clement makes a good one. hauled brush, rocks from as small as chips to too half the size of a vwbug, rock fence posts, dirt, sand, railroad ties, and scrap steel. made to use. Don't tip over easy. Good stout lift cylinder. Grease it once a week and it takes a lot to wear out a pin.

The bee keepers forum apparently didn't show Warrior enough attention today.

Get a life and do something productive.

Have I been nasty to you today BullCrap? Yet?

https://bustedhalo.com/questionbox/...of-the-bible-that-has-been-found-to-date

heres what google came up with warrior. so where is your evidence that it was written earlier?

That's a new one, a Christian that don't believe the bible.

I was wondering what his faith is based on and why.

So you're saying that the oldest still existing COPY of the New Testament dates to the 4th century.

Well that is like saying the Bible on my nightstand proves that the Bible was written in the 20th century.

BTW, that same article states that the oldest extant FRAGMENT dates to 125AD, not even a full century after the resurrection. And is clearly recognized as a portion of the book of John. How is recognizable if all these copies are copies of copies and changed through time as so many claim?

Again third party independent corroboration. In this case the archeological record of surviving documents not considering content of the document.

From this we know that the book of John, or some potion of it was written within the lifetime of someone who knew the eyewitnesses. Possibly within the lifetime, a mere 50 or so years earlier, of the eyewitnesses.

And again I go back to the internal evidence, or should I say lack of, of no mention of the 70AD destruction of the temple within the New Testament record pointing to a writing date for the entire text within 35 years of the resurrection. In other words eyewitness accounts.

And I mean complete with no addendums or revisions because surely something as earth shattering as the destruction of the most holy site in the world to a Jew or Christian would make the cut.

Never said I don't . Don't see how my statement says I don't believe the Bible