"The quantity of New Testament manuscripts is unparalleled in ancient literature. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, about 8,000 Latin manuscripts, and another 1,000 manuscripts in other languages (Syriac, Coptic, etc.). In addition to this extraordinary number, there are tens of thousands of citations of New Testament passages by the early church fathers. In contrast, the typical number of existing manuscript copies for any of the works of the Greek and Latin authors, such as Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, or Tacitus, ranges from one to 20."
Ironic how no one is arguing about the validity of these other ancient works, only the Bible, the best supported ancient documents in the history of man. Yes, ironic.
If the accuracy of the Bible is in doubt, it's a choice not to see the truth right in front of you.
Considering how much of those authors works were lost when the Library of Alexandria burned, it's an apples/oranges comparison.
Of course, there are myriad texts from the Hindus as well, but curiously I don't see you citing there numbers.
When the only sectors of writing allowed in the West for centuries were religious in nature, it's no wonder that the copious religious texts exist. All you could write were documents supporting religion, and those that could write at all were religious scribes. Res ipsa loquitur.
Fireball also fails to mention that to achieve those numbers you must include fragments of manuscripts, many as small as a post card. The number of complete manuscripts is much smaller.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
