The Bible is a Book of Fairy Tales

It would, of course be a vain attempt to try and convince you, but others benefit from the information.

 

How many millions of books of fictional stories have taken place in real cities?

So yet another miserable failure to establish that the bible is not a book of fairy tales.

 

Thank you for admitting that you are incapable of refuting the OP premise.

 

Of course there are. The fact that the "first editions" did not survive does not mean they did not exist.

The Iliad was written in the 8th century BC, but the earliest copy we have is from the 3rd century BC. How do we know it was written in the 8th century and not the 3rd? Because its referenced and quoted in other documents older than the 3rd century, from its wording and language, from the place names and titles it uses, from the events it references. That's typical of most old documents.

Its the same with the New Testament (and Old Testament).

 

That's a common experiment, but that's not how oral tradition works.

In the classroom case, one person whispers to another who whispers to another, etc. The message goes in secret from one person to another, there is no verification or oversight.

In oral tradition, multiple "teachers" and their students all talk to each other, its a group effort. There is oversight across generations and time and people.

To model oral tradition in the classroom, start with 6 people. 2 are teachers, 2 are their students, and 2 are the students of the students. They all learn the message together. Then the original 2 "teachers" drop out, and you add 2 more (the next generation), and that group of 6 learn the message. Do it like that and the message gets to the end of the class in its original form.

 

Not disputing WHEN the "first editions" were written. But the EARLIEST evidence is from 125 AD which means that NONE of them are CONTEMPORARY accounts of what happened.

 

That does not prove that the original story wasn't an imaginary fairy tale to begin with.

 

Yeah fairy tales that are not infrequently supported by outside sources.

 

Please provide all of the credible "outside sources" that "support" the existence of the biblical god.

 

That had already been going on, In fact, marriage to the king of another country was the was the primary way of establishing a treaty but it was also how Solomon fell into sin. And since the tribes they were told to exterminate killed babies as a form of ritual sacrifice by burning them on heated bronze idols, and that societies that do human sacrifice tend to go whole hog when stressed, the likelihood was that there weren't very many babies still alive by the time the Jews took the surprisingly few cities they actually conquered. In fact their failure to exterminate the Canaanite cultures resulted in them pretty much becoming those detestable cultures and adopting many of those same practices. That was why the ten Northern tribes were carried off by the Assyrians, and Judah by the Babylonians later. None of these practices were what God wanted or desired of his people. Yet that is precisely what they did and why in the fullness of time the Jews themselves were carried away into captivity They failed to heed numerous warnings over an extended period of time, and thus earned the Wrath of the very God who had rescued them from durance vile in Egypt.

 

Nonsense. John the Apostle was still alive as late as 80 AD, the Crucifixion most likely having taken place between 27 and 29 AD. Textual evidence suggest that Mark was written no later than 60AD and may well have been much earlier. And matthew not much later

 

There is no physical evidence to support your confirmation bias.

 

Do you understand what Textual evidence is? There is also no physical evidence to suggest that you are correct.

 

Inane non sequitur response!

 

You apparently don't understan the phrase non sequitur. Or textual evidence

 

The fact is that when you exclude biased religions texts, Jesus would be unknown. There should be a vast amount of contemporary writings if Jesus"s actions had factually occurred. Again, you have no more evidence than a Hindu or Islamist to support your God claim.

 

The point is the tradition was on paper (papyrus) pretty quickly.with thousands of examples. Scribes were very meticulous by trade. Mistakes were a small percentage and were easily ferreted out by the commonality of the majority. Earliest examples being more rare compared to later ones show general compatibility all backing up what you state as oral tradition.

 

Considering the level of illiteracy at the times there are a good many writings, Josephus Flavius scarcely the least and He wasn't a Christian. There isn't much to go on for most of the people who were contemporaries of Jesus either if you dump the far more limited quantity of writings about them.

 

Irony squared!

 

Jesus and at least 2 of his disciples were literate and yet there is no evidence of any contemporary writing from any of those three. No rough drafts of sermons, no notes, nada!

 

Legends often include fragments of truth

There may have been no Robin Hood, and yet there was a Sherwood Forest, which likely had some robbers in it
[/QUOTE]

 

wrong, and not terribly surprising even if you were correct

 

Add irony to the list of things you do not grasp

 

Sorry you misread my post. The Chaldeans were part of the NeoBabylonian empire - 1300 years after Abraham. Ur was never known as part of any Chaldean people. It belonged to the Sumerians as a city state. There are indications that much earlier settlements were there in the Ubaid period, destroyed seemingly by floods. It is mentioned 4 times in the OT as 'of the Kasdim'. And this is how it was in the 7th century when it was ruled by the Chaldean Dynasty, and that was how the scribes of the 7th century knew it. They weren't bothered who ruled it in 2100 BCE. JUr was, in the 7th century, 'Chaldean'.

Of course Ramses called Kadesh a victory. So did the Hittites. My view is that it would probably have a pyrrhic victory for the Hittites. Too many men were being lost by both sides. Look at the reports of results of many Jewish v 'gentile' battles. No-one wants to admit defeat.

Frankly I don't talk to many scholars. I look and compare the Bible with known history.

As to the rest of my screed. can you Imagine 2.5m - 3.5m people marching in the order given? Camping in the order given? It's estimated that at 8 abreast the marching queue could have stretched from Egypt to Palestine.

Quote. Almost all of the cities mentioned in the Bible have been located as have many of the individuals named and most of the civilizations. Amazing record for a book of fables. Especially considering that many of those supposed fables have been verified from other sources. Quote.

What's surprising about that. Today the term is Historical Novels. The scribes knew, and used these places and events, to weave their stories around. And in doing so made glaring errors to those who have studied the Bible, ancient history, culture etc.

 

Shakespeare's plays have been printed and reprinted ad infinitum. Does that make them reality?

It's not whether the NT has been altered or not. It's whether it was true in the first place.