How reliable a source...

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so what, you have still not produced a shred of evidence to the contrary.

What evidence would be sufficient for you to accept that Jesus didn't rise from the dead?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so what, you have still not produced a shred of evidence to the contrary.

My comment is addressed to those who seem to think that talking about how the Bible was published and how it proliferated is somehow presenting evidence of its "reliability". I have no reason to believe the claims that followers of Christ make about him. If they seek to convince people that their claims are "true" then they have to offer evidence that is more than just how the NT was created by Christ's followers and how popular it has been.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
fact or fiction in what sense Andy? that John penned and wrote it on the island of Patmos around 90CE, fact, that it contains symbolic language is also a fact. As far as I can tell it contains NO fiction but then again I have only studied it three times, verse by verse.

Its content was from a dream or vision that someone had, is that right?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

No its not possible so shad up and listen, nah only kidding, of course its possible, i get a little bleeding coming in from the clans forum

the massorettes were responsible for copying the Bible, they number not every word but every single letter and totaled it up page by page, now on what basis are you claiming that it has changed significantly ...[text shortened]... known musical instrument.

scholars find little or no supporting evidence for what Andy?😵

The Masoretes didn't come along until the 9th or 10th century A.D. The Book of Isaiah, largely
prophecy with no factual narrative, is only one of the 66 books. Account for the others.

Scholars find little or no supporting evidence for most statements of fact in Scripture.

Originally posted by HandyAndy
The Masoretes didn't come along until the 9th or 10th century A.D. The Book of Isaiah, largely
prophecy with no factual narrative, is only one of the 66 books. Account for the others.

Scholars find little or no supporting evidence for most statements of fact in Scripture.

No I don't need to account for anything it is you that has stated that the accounts are fictional and so far have not proffered a single iota of evidence with which to substantiate the claim except the usual appeal to authority, its true because i or some other authority says its true, infact Isaiah doesn't need to contain anything factual it was simply used as evidence that the text has not changed for a thousand years and your instance that it contains nothing factual proffered as a refutation of this is irrational, unsubstantiated and floundering on the forum floor like a fish out of water.

See if you actually ever proffer any evidence for any of your claims of fiction, let us know.

Again citing what scholars say is not evidence, its an appeal to authority, you were asked for evidence, not opinions.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Again citing what scholars say is not evidence, its an appeal to authority, you were asked for evidence, not opinions.

Do you not yourself "appeal to authority"?

Originally posted by FMF
Its content was from a dream or vision that someone had, is that right?

No not someone, the Apostle John, how you could miss this is known only to you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
See if you actually ever proffer any evidence for any of your claims of fiction, let us know.

The veracity of the NT's claims about Christ is not a 'bagsie-no-returns' notion: its veracity is not a default setting that has to disproved. It actively makes claims about every human being's reality. The onus to corroborate these claims is on those who believe them to be be true. If they can't do it, then one must question their supposed God figure's ability or willingness to communicate effectively with His creation ~ if indeed there has been any such attempt to communicate.

Originally posted by FMF
Do you not yourself "appeal to authority"?

whether i do or not is irrelevant, he was asked for evidence. He has so far produced nothing.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No not someone, the Apostle John, how you could miss this is known only to you.

So its content was from a dream or vision, is that right?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
whether i do or not is irrelevant, he was asked for evidence. He has so far produced nothing.

You can "appeal to authority" but others cannot, is that your stance?

Originally posted by FMF
The veracity of the NT's claims about Christ is not a 'bagsie-no-returns' notion: its veracity is not a default setting that has to disproved. It actively makes claims about every human being's reality. The onus to corroborate these claims is on those who believe them to be be true. If they can't do it, then one must question their supposed God figure's ability ...[text shortened]... nicate effectively with His creation ~ if indeed there has been any such attempt to communicate.

more opinion , sorry i wish i could find your opinions worthwhile but without evidence they are meaningless to me and no the onus is one anyone to substantiate any of the claims they make.

Originally posted by FMF
You can "appeal to authority" but others cannot, is that your stance?

I dont have a stance. The thread is not about my stance, its about the Bible, if you cannot follow the thread then perhaps this is not the place for you. Perhaps your texts belong more in general.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...no the onus is one anyone to substantiate any of the claims they make.

So you don't feel you have to substantiate any of the claims you make?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I dont have a stance. The thread is not about my stance, its about the Bible, if you cannot follow the thread then perhaps this is not the place for you.

Are you making an "appeal to authority" regarding the Bible?