How accurate is the New Testament?

[Pinkfluffyslippers]

I have this problem with the New Testament - so much of it was written ages after the events they describe how accurate is it and how can we believe it? For instance the Gospels differ and don't all mention the same events. (This is before we even start discussing the differences between the translations of the Bible)
Who decided which Gospels to include? I know some were excluded>
Who was the editor ? Was it Paul?
Forgive me for sounding slightly blasphemous but if God wanted to get his message across don't you think he would have sorted this out and given his message to one person. (EG: As with Islam - Allah speaking to Muhammed). I often wonder if the New Testament isn't susceptible to the problems of Chinese whispers.

I do hope someone could answer these questions.

KH-

Have you looked into the evidence for Genesis being true, in terms of God creating the world in 6 real days?(when I say days I mean 24hr periods)

Message withdrawn

MeandB, in so far as I have any interest in it, yes, I have, and I've always been quite content to acknowledge I believe in special creation. Doesn't strike me as any odder to believe in 6 day creation than 6 second creation ex nihilo.

But that doesn't change the fact that Genesis isn't written in the style of something like Judges. (And really, creation/evolution debates bore me to numb tears, and I really can't be doing with it today)

Bloss-

"More importantly, it's beside the point"

I find that an interesting thing to say, surely it IS the point. We are talking about how acturate the bible is.

KH-

'special creation' Never heard of that one before. Im not asking for a creation/evolution debate, I am just trying to understand how different people can take some of the bible as fact and other part of it as not. I always understood it as you cant pick and choice which parts of a reglion you follow. Either you follow it all whole heartly or not at all.

Justabout-

Surely it makes no difference, if the first part is wrong why believe the second. And vice versa.

Ah well, I'm a bugger for picking and choosing. Happy with 6 day creation, not so big on silence in church. I am indeed a rubbish Christian.

Justabout- So you dont believe the OT at all, because it was "written over 100s and 100s of years by different people/tribes in different languages"?

justa, well, I think the argument runs that given that the NT quotes quite a bit of the OT as though it were true, it does undermine the NT if the OT is false.

Foundational stuff like Jesus and Paul using Genesis as the basis for some of thier argumentation and teaching etc.

Not that I think reading Genesis as the form of literature it is undermines that, but that's the gist of the thought.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

Bloss: the difficulty is that, as I mentioned, even in those parts of the bible which are considered to be potentially historically credible, there are still many and major inaccuraries and contradictions both within the source text and with external sources (e.g. comparative texts, archaeological research). I think most people and institutes short of the hardline seminaries would agree that.

That's fine, and I think given its era it's hard not to argue that it's a pretty well supported document but still one that's got a lot of holes in it that in it. Again, that's fine if it was the Iliad but as a historical document which forms the factual foundation of a world-wide faith of billions...? And whilst the historical veracity of the bible might not be a hot subject of debate right now in informing the direction of Christian faith, it certainly was in the early days of the church.

I think it's also fine to argue that the bible is a source of inspiration or as KH said "as a piece of literature that has a certain intent". But then you really can't argue in favour of its historical accuracy - you have to hold your hands up and say that you know it's not actually true but it is inspirational (and that's all). You certainly can't conflate the two and say some bits are intended to be historically accurate (e.g. the wedding at Galilee) but that others are not (e.g. the miracle performed there) otherwise the entire thing falls apart.

KH- that was also going to be my point too, as I know that the OT is quoted in the NT. At least we agree on something

Bloss- what is it about Genesis that suggests to you that its a poem? Im genuienly interested, not having a go.

Good grief, cestlavie, my argument is not that 'the wedding at Cana was historically accurate, but there was no miracle performed there'.

It is simply that a History book is read as a history book, and piece of apocalyptic vision like Revelation is read in the manner it was intended to be.

I'm not at all excited about attempts to slice and dice the gospels to extract a neutered 'human Jesus' yada yada yada.

Now, I'm not expecting everyone to believe everything written in the gospels - but I am at least convinced that the communities which produced them believed them, because they were written at least when the events were within living memory, and so they're likely to be a true record of what was credibly believed about the life of Jesus.

I don't expect them to be a word for word dictation retrieved from some sacred recording equipment. Like I said earlier in the thread, 'accuracy' is all about what you're looking for, really. People seem to have wildly varying expectations of what the NT is.

MeandB, I very much doubt we would substantially disagree on much at all about the faith.

Justa, you cheat. Flippin' liberals.

KH: yes, thanks, I did kinda get your point that different parts are read differently. My point was that the historical parts should be historically accurate.

Justa: I guess my point is that at which point you decide which part is myth and which part is historical? You need to be careful, otherwise taking a reductionist approach, the only parts which you'd accept as being actually true are those parts proven to be so, with the rest of it all being myth.

cetslavie, of course - and we really have no way proving that the gospels aren't, if the objection is the miracles, which it appeared to be in your eg.

Justa, yeah, but you're eva so nice for a libral.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

It is funny that many people debate and look to the Bible as if it can be interpreted.

But I think if a sensible God had thought about this whole Bible thing, he/she/it would have been a lot clearer about what he/she/it meant.

I am sure opressed groups throughout history, such as women and homosexuals, would have been truly grateful that the way they live their lives wasn't so open to human debate and interpretation.

I think that maybe humans who felt their writings/stories were inspired by God, wrote stuff down and it got compiled into the Bible. I am not questioning that they genuinely thought what they wrote was from God, but if someone today wrote stuff that they said was inspired by God and expected us to follow it, we would probably all think they are slightly deluded.