Biblical Inerrancy: New Testament Reliability III

Sorry.

The fact is that I am terminating this thread - for a couple of reasons.

First, I was underwhelmed by the external evidence - not by its volume, or its authenticity, or by its support, but by the "so what factor".

If someone makes it through the Uniqueness, construction and internal evidence and still refuses to acknowledge the reliability of the NT, the problem is not intellectual. It is willful disregard for the very same fact-based process used for any text.

You see, although LiberPaul stated that he used "my intellect and observations" the fact is that Christianity is a thinking, logical faith. It isn't blind, and doesn't require you to check your brain at the church door. The evidence is brutally compelling, and it is dismissal of it that requires abandonment of logic.

External evidence only makes a headline when it is contrary to the NT - and then disappears when that evidence is wrong. For example, "scholars" claimed that Moses could not have authored the Pentateuch because writing did not exist...then archaeologists discovered that there was writing before Moses. "Historians" claimed that the Hittites never existed...until archaeologists discovered indisputable evidence of the Hittites and their culture.

You see, once you have denied the uniqueness, superior construction and internal evidence of the NT, you don't care that hundreds of early writings confirm its accounts, or that the only argument against the historical reliability of the NT is the argument from silence - "well, it doesn't say that anywhere else, does it?" All you care about is that you don't believe.

Scholars, such as Pelty, have examined the NT in great detail in hermeneutics and exegesis, and have found things such as potential common sources between the gospels and difficult timelines to follow. It's neat stuff, and I am looking forward to my seminary classes that start next week - Intro to the NT, Elementary Greek, and Intro to Church History. What they have not found is proof that any of the NT is false.

If it isn't false, isn't it inerrant? I speak of the text, not the interpretation.

Feel free to comment on the ideas presented, and if you disagree, say why.

However, I ask one favor - do you have a reason beyond, "I think", "I can't imagine" or "I have trouble with"? In essence, do you have a reason beyond your own feelings about the subject you don't want to believe is true about God, man, sin, Jesus or faith?

Note: I recognize that I did not address the OT. The primary arguments for internal evidence are the same, plus the amazing level of detail used in Jewish manuscript copying before the printing press. Not one jot nor one tittle has disapeared, indeed.