The creator did it.

[Subduction Zone]

Ok
Daniel
and then under Online Resources for Daniel it has...
Daniel Wallace's Outline of Daniel
Highly recommended...thank you sooda

Daniel fails as a prophecy. Too much adjusting of dates has to be done to take it seriously. It is merely a matter of making it match after the fact.

If fails number three in the following list abysmally:

Criteria for a true prophecy[edit]
For a statement to be Biblical foreknowledge, it must fit all of the five following criteria:

1. It must be accurate. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements. TLDR: It's true.
2. It must be in the Bible. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical by definition foreknowledge can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text. TLDR: It's in plain words in the Bible.
3. It must be precise and unambiguous. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental. TLDR: Vague "predictions" don't count.
4. It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence. TLDR: Lucky guesses don't count.
5. It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it. TLDR: Ideas of the time don't count.

And number 1 as well. In fact those that understand Daniel the best do not think that it is a messianic prophecy.

 

[joelr]

From F.F. Bruce,
The late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make
pronouncements on ancient MSS was second to none:

'

As F.F. Bruce stated in his book,
"The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable?"...
The earliest propagators of Christianity welcomed the fullest examination of the credentials of their message. The events which they proclaimed were, as Paul said to King Agrippa, not done in a corner, and were well able to bear all the light that could be thrown on them. The spirit of these early Christians ought to animate their modern descendants. For by an acquaintance with the relevant evidence they will not only be able to give to everyone who asks them a reason for the hope that is in them, but they themselves, like Theophilus, will thus know more accurately how secure is the basis of the faith which they have been taught.

I am just re-posting this with some new information to help some people here to better understand what we mean when we talk about the historical reliability of the New Testament manuscripts...
Author:

Mathew
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-70
Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180

Mark
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-60
Early Identification: Papias A.D.140, Irenaeus A.D.180

Luke
Date written: Gospel A.D.60-80, Acts A.D.63-70
Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

John
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-85,1John A.D.70-100, 2John A.D.85-95, 3John A.D.85-95, Revelation A.D.69-95

Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

Paul
Date written: Romans 57 A.D., 1Corinthians A.D.55, 2Corinthians A.D.55, Galatians A.D.48- 53, Ephesians A.D.60, Philippians A.D.61, Colossians A.D.60, 1Thessalonians A.D.51, 2Thessalonians A.D.51-52, 1Timothy A.D.64, 2Timothy A.D.66-67, Titus A.D.63-65, Philemon A.D.60

Early Identification: Clement of Rome A.D.96, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

James
Date written: James A.D.50

Peter
Date written: 1Peter A.D.60-64, 2Peter A.D.65-68

Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Eusebius A.D.265-340

Jude
Date written: Jude A.D.65-80

Early Identification: Clement of Rome A.D.96, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Eusebius A.D.265-340, Athanasius A.D.298-373, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

Hebrews
Date written: Hebrews A.D.67-70
Early Identification: Tertullian A.D.155-222

All of those old authors you post use old and bias information that has been completely debunked. Those gospel dates are something only fundamentalists accept.

This panel of historical experts including a pastor goes over all evidence for Jesus, dates, names and examines every possible mention of Jesus ever.


At 16:50 they have an outline of most probable dates for the gospels on a screen.

By the video end everyone is forced to admit the historical reliability cannot be established, not even close.


But we also know that there are pages and pages of verbatim Greek all taken from Mark, so the other gospels were just written using Mark as a template and different pagan and OT elements were added in each.
Luke takes the most from the OT copying directly from Kings.
It's also never written as history but 100% as mythology. Dying/rising in 3 days savior messiahs who took sins of their followers was nothing new with Jesus either.
Jesus means "savior", what a coincidence.....

 

[He has Risen!]

From F.F. Bruce,
The late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make
pronouncements on ancient MSS was second to none:

'The interval then between the data of original composition and the earliest extant evidence become so small to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scripture have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.'
Answering Skeptics Questions - Josh.org
from Google;
Sir Frederic George Kenyon GBE KCB TD FBA FSA (15 January 1863 – 23 August 1952) was a British paleographer and biblical and classical scholar. Kenyon was a noted scholar of ancient languages, and made a life-long study of the Bible, especially the New Testament as an historical text.

From N.T. Wright,
Fred Bruce (F.F. Bruce) was a legend in his own lifetime...those who had studied with him spoke of him with awe and affection in equal measure. He began his his life as a classicist. He built on this foundation an extraordinary range of scholarly expertise about Judaism and Christianity, not only - though this was his primary field - the New Testament and the world that surrounded it, but all kinds of subjects.

As F.F. Bruce stated in his book,
"The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable?"...
The earliest propagators of Christianity welcomed the fullest examination of the credentials of their message. The events which they proclaimed were, as Paul said to King Agrippa, not done in a corner, and were well able to bear all the light that could be thrown on them. The spirit of these early Christians ought to animate their modern descendants. For by an acquaintance with the relevant evidence they will not only be able to give to everyone who asks them a reason for the hope that is in them, but they themselves, like Theophilus, will thus know more accurately how secure is the basis of the faith which they have been taught.

I am just re-posting this with some new information to help some people here to better understand what we mean when we talk about the historical reliability of the New Testament manuscripts...
Author:

Mathew
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-70
Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180

Mark
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-60
Early Identification: Papias A.D.140, Irenaeus A.D.180

Luke
Date written: Gospel A.D.60-80, Acts A.D.63-70
Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

John
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-85,1John A.D.70-100, 2John A.D.85-95, 3John A.D.85-95, Revelation A.D.69-95

Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

Paul
Date written: Romans 57 A.D., 1Corinthians A.D.55, 2Corinthians A.D.55, Galatians A.D.48- 53, Ephesians A.D.60, Philippians A.D.61, Colossians A.D.60, 1Thessalonians A.D.51, 2Thessalonians A.D.51-52, 1Timothy A.D.64, 2Timothy A.D.66-67, Titus A.D.63-65, Philemon A.D.60

Early Identification: Clement of Rome A.D.96, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

James
Date written: James A.D.50

Peter
Date written: 1Peter A.D.60-64, 2Peter A.D.65-68

Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Eusebius A.D.265-340

Jude
Date written: Jude A.D.65-80

Early Identification: Clement of Rome A.D.96, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Eusebius A.D.265-340, Athanasius A.D.298-373, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

Hebrews
Date written: Hebrews A.D.67-70
Early Identification: Tertullian A.D.155-222


Now you can verify for yourself some of the above research list on the site below;
Early Christian Writings
Church Fathers
Church Fathers: Irenaeus of Lyons
Against Heresies, Book III
Chapter XI
see also
Chapter XIV


Below are three tests that are used in scholarly research of ancient manuscripts,
1. internal witness-do the authors claim to be the eyewitness, do the authors claim to be giving the account of eyewitness testimony
Acts 16:2
Luke, who is the author of Acts, starts to use the "we and us" in his account of the Acts of the apostles, because he now joins the apostle Paul in ministering the gospel. This is a valid attestation of Luke being an eyewitness to his account.
John 19:35
John the apostle, who is the author of this gospel, states that he is witnessing the crucifixion and the death of Jesus before his very eyes. He also is the one in verse 19:26-27 who took Jesus' mother into his home after the death of Jesus.
1John 1:1-4
John the apostle, who is the author of this letter, claims to have "heard", "looked at" and touched Jesus.
other scriptures to look at...
Luke 1:2
2 Peter 1:16
John 1:14

2. external witness-are there sources dating close to the original authors that support the documents (such as my list above with the early church fathers validating the authors of the NT books)

3. The bibliographical test-(explained below)
The bibliographical test examines manuscript reliability, and for more than a generation Christian apologists have employed it to substantiate the transmissional reliability of the New Testament. The bibliographical test compares the closeness of the New Testament’s oldest extant manuscripts to the date of its autographs (the original handwritten documents) and the sheer number of the New Testament’s extant manuscripts with the number and earliness of extant manuscripts of other ancient documents such as Homer, Aristotle, and Herodotus.
Since the New Testament manuscripts outstrip every other ancient manuscript in sheer number and proximity to the autographs, the New Testament should be regarded as having been accurately transmitted. However, although apologists have stayed abreast of the dates of the earliest extant manuscripts and latest New Testament Greek manuscript counts, we haven’t kept up with the increasing numbers of manuscripts for other ancient authors that are recognized by classical scholars. For example, although apologists rightly claim that there are well over five thousand Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, they have reported the number of manuscripts for Homer’s Iliad to be 643, but the real number of Iliad manuscripts is actually 1,757.
https://www.equip.org/article/the-bibliographical-test-updated/
https://www.josh.org/wp-content/uploads/Bibliographical-Test-Update-02.04.16.pdf




(PS I will be adding more information to this and repost it again with additions as I have the time, thank you for your patience in this regards)
Book Sources:
Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.1, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Vol.1, The Teachings of the Church Fathers (chap.6) by John Willis (this book is a great resource), The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable by F.F. Bruce, Zondervan NIV Study Bible

Internet Sources for your convenience:
Intro to Luke
The Muratorian Fragment
Sinai Palimpsests Processed Images
ResearchGuides: Biblical Manuscripts: Greek NT Manuscripts
Manuscripts - CSNTM
Manuscript P52 - CSNTM

 

[Subduction Zone]

From F.F. Bruce,
The late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make
pronouncements on ancient MSS was second to none:

'The interval then between the data of original composition and the earliest extant evidence become so small to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scripture have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.'

From N.T. Wright,
Fred Bruce (F.F. Bruce) was a legend in his own lifetime...those who had studied with him spoke of him with awe and affection in equal measure. He began his his life as a classicist. He built on this foundation an extraordinary range of scholarly expertise about Judaism and Christianity, not only - though this was his primary field - the New Testament and the world that surrounded it, but all kinds of subjects.

As F.F. Bruce stated in his book,
"The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable?"...
The earliest propagators of Christianity welcomed the fullest examination of the credentials of their message. The events which they proclaimed were, as Paul said to King Agrippa, not done in a corner, and were well able to bear all the light that could be thrown on them. The spirit of these early Christians ought to animate their modern descendants. For by an acquaintance with the relevant evidence they will not only be able to give to everyone who asks them a reason for the hope that is in them, but they themselves, like Theophilus, will thus know more accurately how secure is the basis of the faith which they have been taught.

I am just re-posting this with some new information to help some people here to better understand what we mean when we talk about the historical reliability of the New Testament manuscripts...
Author:

Mathew
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-70
Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180

Mark
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-60
Early Identification: Papias A.D.140, Irenaeus A.D.180

Luke
Date written: Gospel A.D.60-80, Acts A.D.63-70
Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

John
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-85,1John A.D.70-100, 2John A.D.85-95, 3John A.D.85-95, Revelation A.D.69-95

Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

Paul
Date written: Romans 57 A.D., 1Corinthians A.D.55, 2Corinthians A.D.55, Galatians A.D.48- 53, Ephesians A.D.60, Philippians A.D.61, Colossians A.D.60, 1Thessalonians A.D.51, 2Thessalonians A.D.51-52, 1Timothy A.D.64, 2Timothy A.D.66-67, Titus A.D.63-65, Philemon A.D.60

Early Identification: Clement of Rome A.D.96, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

James
Date written: James A.D.50

Peter
Date written: 1Peter A.D.60-64, 2Peter A.D.65-68

Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Eusebius A.D.265-340

Jude
Date written: Jude A.D.65-80

Early Identification: Clement of Rome A.D.96, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Eusebius A.D.265-340, Athanasius A.D.298-373, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

Hebrews
Date written: Hebrews A.D.67-70
Early Identification: Tertullian A.D.155-222


Now you can check out research list on this site...
Early Christian Writings
Church Fathers
Church Fathers: Irenaeus of Lyons
Against Heresies, Book III
Chapter XI
see also
Chapter XIV


Below are three tests that are used in scholarly research of ancient manuscripts,
1. internal witness-do the authors claim to be the eyewitness, do the authors claim to be giving the account of eyewitness testimony
Acts 16:2
Luke, who is the author of Acts, starts to use the "we and us" in his account of the Acts of the apostles, because he now joins the apostle Paul in ministering the gospel. This is a valid attestation of Luke being an eyewitness to his account.
John 19:35
John the apostle, who is the author of this gospel, states that he is witnessing the crucifixion and the death of Jesus before his very eyes. He also is the one in verse 19:26-27 who took Jesus' mother into his home after the death of Jesus.
1John 1:1-4
John the apostle, who is the author of this letter, claims to have "heard", "looked at" and touched Jesus.
other scriptures to look at...
Luke 1:2
2 Peter 1:16
John 1:14

2. external witness-are there sources dating close to the original authors that support the documents (such as my list above with the early church fathers validating the authors of the NT books)

3. The bibliographical test-(explained below)
The bibliographical test examines manuscript reliability, and for more than a generation Christian apologists have employed it to substantiate the transmissional reliability of the New Testament. The bibliographical test compares the closeness of the New Testament’s oldest extant manuscripts to the date of its autographs (the original handwritten documents) and the sheer number of the New Testament’s extant manuscripts with the number and earliness of extant manuscripts of other ancient documents such as Homer, Aristotle, and Herodotus.
Since the New Testament manuscripts outstrip every other ancient manuscript in sheer number and proximity to the autographs, the New Testament should be regarded as having been accurately transmitted. However, although apologists have stayed abreast of the dates of the earliest extant manuscripts and latest New Testament Greek manuscript counts, we haven’t kept up with the increasing numbers of manuscripts for other ancient authors that are recognized by classical scholars. For example, although apologists rightly claim that there are well over five thousand Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, they have reported the number of manuscripts for Homer’s Iliad to be 643, but the real number of Iliad manuscripts is actually 1,757.
https://www.equip.org/article/the-bibliographical-test-updated/




(PS I will be adding more information to this and repost it again with additions as I have the time, thank you for your patience in this regards)
Book Sources:
Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.1, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Vol.1, The Teachings of the Church Fathers (chap.6) by John Willis (this book is a great resource), The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable by F.F. Bruce, Zondervan NIV Study Bible

Internet Sources for your convenience:
Intro to Luke
The Muratorian Fragment
Sinai Palimpsests Processed Images
ResearchGuides: Biblical Manuscripts: Greek NT Manuscripts
Manuscripts - CSNTM
Manuscript P52 - CSNTM

Posting spam may be against the forum rules. Repeatedly posting a cut and paste of refuted nonsense does not help you.

 

[He has Risen!]

Posting spam may be against the forum rules. Repeatedly posting a cut and paste of refuted nonsense does not help you.

I am adding more to my original as I said I would...if you ever get a chance to read it you would know that is how I am updating my research for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am adding more to my original as I said I would...if you ever get a chance to read it you would know that is how I am updating my research for you.

It does not really matter since the heart of your post consists of already refuted claims.

 

[He has Risen!]

It does not really matter since the heart of your post consists of already refuted claims.

You have refuted nothing I posted, all you did was go to non-primary sources on the internet...lame refuting maybe. Take a lesson from sooda, she understands primary sources from lame internet resources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have refuted nothing I posted, all you did was go to non-primary resources on the internet...lame refuting maybe.

You have that backwards as usual. Your sources are out of date. That makes them often less than secondary.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Bravo, Bravo, you get an A for this part of your post...I only wish that it was true all the time, especially when we try to understand human origins.

The actual data demonstrates that humans evolved from other non-human primates.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

just because mutations have not harmed this generation, it says nothing about not harming the next few generations down the line.

EVERY new born.

This generation, the previous generation, the next generation,...

Every single generation.

 

[sooda]

Daniel fails as a prophecy. Too much adjusting of dates has to be done to take it seriously. It is merely a matter of making it match after the fact.

If fails number three in the following list abysmally:

Criteria for a true prophecy[edit]
For a statement to be Biblical foreknowledge, it must fit all of the five following criteria:

1. It must be accurate. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements. TLDR: It's true.
2. It must be in the Bible. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical by definition foreknowledge can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text. TLDR: It's in plain words in the Bible.
3. It must be precise and unambiguous. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental. TLDR: Vague "predictions" don't count.
4. It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence. TLDR: Lucky guesses don't count.
5. It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it. TLDR: Ideas of the time don't count.

And number 1 as well. In fact those that understand Daniel the best do not think that it is a messianic prophecy.

The Book of Daniel was written in 165 BC long after the end of the Babylonian exile... and about the time of the Maccabean Revolt.

 

[sooda]

All of those old authors you post use old and bias information that has been completely debunked. Those gospel dates are something only fundamentalists accept.

This panel of historical experts including a pastor goes over all evidence for Jesus, dates, names and examines every possible mention of Jesus ever.


At 16:50 they have an outline of most probable dates for the gospels on a screen.

By the video end everyone is forced to admit the historical reliability cannot be established, not even close.


But we also know that there are pages and pages of verbatim Greek all taken from Mark, so the other gospels were just written using Mark as a template and different pagan and OT elements were added in each.
Luke takes the most from the OT copying directly from Kings.
It's also never written as history but 100% as mythology. Dying/rising in 3 days savior messiahs who took sins of their followers was nothing new with Jesus either.
Jesus means "savior", what a coincidence.....

Early Christian Writings is NOT a fundamentalist website.

 

[tas8831]

Tas you should, but you don't have to, "Write something worthy of a response!"

Thanks for the projection, bro - but try looking one post up:


Please note that Rapture Era replied to this post, but not the parts in red (I have omitted comments that were not actual or implied questions):

That is not evolution that is abiogenesis. Why the conflation? Don't you know any better?


Tell me about it all - pretend I know nothing about it. What is "information" in a cell? How much is required, and how do you know?



Wow, seems like a great argument against evolution,but it seems very very thin on the details.


So.... You don't understand that you are making two different arguments?

Evolution is about the changes that occur in living things.


Can you really critically think that one of many ancient Hebrew tribal deities is really the one true God, and that this tribal deity created the universe from noting in a day and made a man from dust?​

 

[ecco]

From F.F. Bruce,
The late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make
pronouncements on ancient MSS was second to none:

A scholar with a very definite and clearly demonstrated bias.

 

[Audie]

A scholar with a very definite and clearly demonstrated bias.

Well, you know, them scholars are only dependable
when they say what our fundies want to hear.

 

[Audie]

From F.F. Bruce,
The late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make
pronouncements on ancient MSS was second to none:

'The interval then between the data of original composition and the earliest extant evidence become so small to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scripture have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.'
Answering Skeptics Questions - Josh.org
from Google;
Sir Frederic George Kenyon GBE KCB TD FBA FSA (15 January 1863 – 23 August 1952) was a British paleographer and biblical and classical scholar. Kenyon was a noted scholar of ancient languages, and made a life-long study of the Bible, especially the New Testament as an historical text.

From N.T. Wright,
Fred Bruce (F.F. Bruce) was a legend in his own lifetime...those who had studied with him spoke of him with awe and affection in equal measure. He began his his life as a classicist. He built on this foundation an extraordinary range of scholarly expertise about Judaism and Christianity, not only - though this was his primary field - the New Testament and the world that surrounded it, but all kinds of subjects.

As F.F. Bruce stated in his book,
"The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable?"...
The earliest propagators of Christianity welcomed the fullest examination of the credentials of their message. The events which they proclaimed were, as Paul said to King Agrippa, not done in a corner, and were well able to bear all the light that could be thrown on them. The spirit of these early Christians ought to animate their modern descendants. For by an acquaintance with the relevant evidence they will not only be able to give to everyone who asks them a reason for the hope that is in them, but they themselves, like Theophilus, will thus know more accurately how secure is the basis of the faith which they have been taught.

I am just re-posting this with some new information to help some people here to better understand what we mean when we talk about the historical reliability of the New Testament manuscripts...
Author:

Mathew
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-70
Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180

Mark
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-60
Early Identification: Papias A.D.140, Irenaeus A.D.180

Luke
Date written: Gospel A.D.60-80, Acts A.D.63-70
Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

John
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-85,1John A.D.70-100, 2John A.D.85-95, 3John A.D.85-95, Revelation A.D.69-95

Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

Paul
Date written: Romans 57 A.D., 1Corinthians A.D.55, 2Corinthians A.D.55, Galatians A.D.48- 53, Ephesians A.D.60, Philippians A.D.61, Colossians A.D.60, 1Thessalonians A.D.51, 2Thessalonians A.D.51-52, 1Timothy A.D.64, 2Timothy A.D.66-67, Titus A.D.63-65, Philemon A.D.60

Early Identification: Clement of Rome A.D.96, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

James
Date written: James A.D.50

Peter
Date written: 1Peter A.D.60-64, 2Peter A.D.65-68

Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Eusebius A.D.265-340

Jude
Date written: Jude A.D.65-80

Early Identification: Clement of Rome A.D.96, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Eusebius A.D.265-340, Athanasius A.D.298-373, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

Hebrews
Date written: Hebrews A.D.67-70
Early Identification: Tertullian A.D.155-222


Now you can verify for yourself some of the above research list on the site below;
Early Christian Writings
Church Fathers
Church Fathers: Irenaeus of Lyons
Against Heresies, Book III
Chapter XI
see also
Chapter XIV


Below are three tests that are used in scholarly research of ancient manuscripts,
1. internal witness-do the authors claim to be the eyewitness, do the authors claim to be giving the account of eyewitness testimony
Acts 16:2
Luke, who is the author of Acts, starts to use the "we and us" in his account of the Acts of the apostles, because he now joins the apostle Paul in ministering the gospel. This is a valid attestation of Luke being an eyewitness to his account.
John 19:35
John the apostle, who is the author of this gospel, states that he is witnessing the crucifixion and the death of Jesus before his very eyes. He also is the one in verse 19:26-27 who took Jesus' mother into his home after the death of Jesus.
1John 1:1-4
John the apostle, who is the author of this letter, claims to have "heard", "looked at" and touched Jesus.
other scriptures to look at...
Luke 1:2
2 Peter 1:16
John 1:14

2. external witness-are there sources dating close to the original authors that support the documents (such as my list above with the early church fathers validating the authors of the NT books)

3. The bibliographical test-(explained below)
The bibliographical test examines manuscript reliability, and for more than a generation Christian apologists have employed it to substantiate the transmissional reliability of the New Testament. The bibliographical test compares the closeness of the New Testament’s oldest extant manuscripts to the date of its autographs (the original handwritten documents) and the sheer number of the New Testament’s extant manuscripts with the number and earliness of extant manuscripts of other ancient documents such as Homer, Aristotle, and Herodotus.
Since the New Testament manuscripts outstrip every other ancient manuscript in sheer number and proximity to the autographs, the New Testament should be regarded as having been accurately transmitted. However, although apologists have stayed abreast of the dates of the earliest extant manuscripts and latest New Testament Greek manuscript counts, we haven’t kept up with the increasing numbers of manuscripts for other ancient authors that are recognized by classical scholars. For example, although apologists rightly claim that there are well over five thousand Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, they have reported the number of manuscripts for Homer’s Iliad to be 643, but the real number of Iliad manuscripts is actually 1,757.
https://www.equip.org/article/the-bibliographical-test-updated/
https://www.josh.org/wp-content/uploads/Bibliographical-Test-Update-02.04.16.pdf




(PS I will be adding more information to this and repost it again with additions as I have the time, thank you for your patience in this regards)
Book Sources:
Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.1, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Vol.1, The Teachings of the Church Fathers (chap.6) by John Willis (this book is a great resource), The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable by F.F. Bruce, Zondervan NIV Study Bible

Internet Sources for your convenience:
Intro to Luke
The Muratorian Fragment
Sinai Palimpsests Processed Images
ResearchGuides: Biblical Manuscripts: Greek NT Manuscripts
Manuscripts - CSNTM
Manuscript P52 - CSNTM

You like research, find a bible scholar who voices
doubts or differences.

 

[sooda]

A scholar with a very definite and clearly demonstrated bias.

Since Kenyon the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi, the Ugarit poems at Ras Shamra and the cuneiform tablets at Dilmun have all been available to scholars.. Plus there is 50 years of Sumerian translation work done by Samuel Noah Kramer.

 

[He has Risen!]

You like research, find a bible scholar who voices
doubts or differences.

One of the most well known ones out there that opposes the reliability of the bible is Bart Ehrman, below you will see him debating Daniel Wallace

 

[He has Risen!]

The Book of Daniel was written in 165 BC long after the end of the Babylonian exile... and about the time of the Maccabean Revolt.

Look into when the Dead Sea Scrolls date the book of Daniel...
What is the earliest proven evidence for the date Daniel was written? Are the Dead Sea Scrolls relevant? | Evidence for Christianity

Good question

Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls

 

[Audie]

One of the most well known ones out there that opposes the reliability of the bible is Bart Ehrman, below you will see him debating Daniel Wallace

Um, so? Are you one who thinks the bible is literal and inerrent?
Dp you agree with this guy?

If you are a flood-believer, do you seek out the
words of educated Christians (like, say, geologists)
who would patiently explain that it did not happen?