You're entire response misses the point.
The authenticity/reliability of the NT documents (which I have 100% shown to be light years above any other book from early antiquity) is not an argument for whether or not the content in the Bible is true. All the information I provided does is prove that we can ascertain with a very high level of certainty (99.8%) that what we have in our hands today IS what the original authors wrote down - whether you believe that message came from God or not, or is true or not.
Do you see the nuance?
If you don't see the nuance, then maybe you should ask some clarifying questions to make sure you understand what is being said, before spouting off at the lip trying to wax eloquent.
By the way, your attempt at casting doubt on the ability of language to communicate meaning to another is a self refuting attempt. You say here:
Any language in existence is a set of pigeon holes, words with finite meanings, that are interpreted differently even by contemporary people with agreed upon definitions.
You either believe the words you are using have some sort of common understanding and can communicate the intent of what you are trying to say to me, in which case your argument fails, or, what you are saying about the nature of language is true and no one can truly understand what it is you're trying to say because "words can be interpreted differently."
You can't have it both ways.
The facts that I have presented (and others) above in the previous comments show, without a doubt, that there is no other book from early antiquity that can claim the level of reliability/trustworthiness that the NT can claim.
Hands down.
You're entire response misses the point.
The authenticity/reliability of the NT documents (which I have 100% shown to be light years above any other book from early antiquity) is not an argument for whether or not the content in the Bible is true. All the information I provided does is prove that we can ascertain with a very high level of certainty (99.8%) that what we have in our hands today IS what the original authors wrote down - whether you believe that message came from God or not, or is true or not.
Do you see the nuance?
If you don't see the nuance, then maybe you should ask some clarifying questions to make sure you understand what is being said, before spouting off at the lip trying to wax eloquent.
By the way, your attempt at casting doubt on the ability of language to communicate meaning to another is a self refuting attempt. You say here:
Any language in existence is a set of pigeon holes, words with finite meanings, that are interpreted differently even by contemporary people with agreed upon definitions.
You either believe the words you are using have some sort of common understanding and can communicate the intent of what you are trying to say to me, in which case your argument fails, or, what you are saying about the nature of language is true and no one can truly understand what it is you're trying to say because "words can be interpreted differently."
You can't have it both ways.