Post by Sheila on Mar 18, 2024 15:50:17 GMT -5
If Christians are going to base their beliefs on the Bible, they have to have some assurance that what they're reading is true. Is that possible? Although there are some scientist and other scholars who will say there are many things wrong or inaccurate in the Bible, others with the same level of education and training say the answer is yes. Even after reading this thread, there may still be some points of theology and doctrine that must still be believed by faith.
There are people, some who profess to be Christians, who will deny some of the information in the Bible. They make the claim that some things were deleted, changed, or added to the Bible much later and done so in order to meet the agendas or opinions of church leaders or the government. However, if we look at the studies conducted by some scientists and scholars - both Christian and non-Christian - there's a lot of agreement about how accurately the Bible has been transcribed and passed down through the years. They can do this by studying both full and partial manuscripts as well as bits and pieces of pages that have been discovered and preserved.
Mistakes and changes could have been made at the time the earliest copies were made because they were done by hand and written out by scribes. However, if even the slightest mistake was made (example: a misplaced or missing punctuation mark) the scribe had to destroy the copy and start over. Once completed, the copy would've been checked by other people. If anything was added or changed, the manuscript would've been destroyed. The earliest known fragment of the New Testament can be dated to within 50 years of when the information would have first been recorded; the first most complete copy has been dated to a period 250 years after the information was originally recorded. Most of these are written in Greek (5,656) with many others written in various languages. In total there are 24,970 full manuscripts, partial manuscripts, and fragments. When all of these are compared to one another, what we see is that what's recorded in later copies is the exact same as the earlier ones. Compare this to secular writings. The earliest of only ten known copies of Caesar's Gallic Wars was written 1000 years after the original would have been recorded. The earliest of seven known copies of Pliny Secundus' Natural History was written 750 after the original. By comparing the numbers of copies and the time span between when the original manuscripts would've been written and the earliest known copies, not to mention the number of copies that can be compared against one another, it seems more likely the Bible can be shown to be much more accurate than the secular books. So it must be asked, why do non-Christians believe the information in the non-Christian books and then state the Bible is false or inaccurate?
There are non-Christians who argue the Bible can't be reliable because archaeology has proven that a lot of the towns, cities, and geography is wrong. If someone can prove the writers were so wrong about stuff that can proven or dis-proven by science, then nothing else should be taken as fact. While some of the locations mentioned in the Bible have been covered up though time and not yet discovered, that doesn't mean the writers were wrong. On the other hand, what science has uncovered has proven the facts to be true. Of names and locations mentioned in the book of Acts, the writers were accurate and properly named and located thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands. These facts have led the scholar Nelson Glueck to say "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible".
When the previous arguments put forth by non-Christians fail to sway Christians to their way of thinking, they fall back on the argument that while the geography and history may be accurate and most of the people mentioned really lived during those times, the stories about at least some of the events were mere myths. As a myth, they say, things such as miracles, the resurrection, and other supernatural events were added in order to make it seem as if Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled or simply to convince people to follow a new religion. What they intentionally fail to mention is the fact of how close to the actual events the information was recorded. Even if the original manuscripts were written, in the form of books or letters, fifty years after the events, there were still people alive who could verify or deny they happened. If it were only a few people at a time who were convinced a lie was the truth, it's possible these people may have been willing to stick to the lie and pass it along. Eventually, over a long period of time, there would be people who didn't witness the events who could be convinced a myth was true. Yet we read there were times when hundreds or thousands of people witnessed the events. Were all of these people convinced something happened that really didn't by mass hypnosis or some other means? Were they all deluded or mentally disturbed in some way? Highly doubtful.
Christians aren't supposed to believe some events occurred because they sound too far-fetched to non-Christians, although those events were recorded within the lifetimes of many of the witnesses. Those events are also recorded in thousands of copies that were hand-written centuries later and accurately match the originals. Yet we're to believe every fact found in the Gallic Wars as written by Caesar when the first known copy in existence is dated to 1000 years after the events, there are no earlier copies available to check the presented facts for accuracy, and no one was still alive to verify what really happened during the wars. With this and the other statements in this thread, Christians should have confidence that the Bible is accurate and reliable.
* The information for this thread comes for various sources. Although not provided here in detail, they can be found, along with more details about the information in The New Evidence the Demands a Verdict by Josh D McDowell (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999).
There are people, some who profess to be Christians, who will deny some of the information in the Bible. They make the claim that some things were deleted, changed, or added to the Bible much later and done so in order to meet the agendas or opinions of church leaders or the government. However, if we look at the studies conducted by some scientists and scholars - both Christian and non-Christian - there's a lot of agreement about how accurately the Bible has been transcribed and passed down through the years. They can do this by studying both full and partial manuscripts as well as bits and pieces of pages that have been discovered and preserved.
Mistakes and changes could have been made at the time the earliest copies were made because they were done by hand and written out by scribes. However, if even the slightest mistake was made (example: a misplaced or missing punctuation mark) the scribe had to destroy the copy and start over. Once completed, the copy would've been checked by other people. If anything was added or changed, the manuscript would've been destroyed. The earliest known fragment of the New Testament can be dated to within 50 years of when the information would have first been recorded; the first most complete copy has been dated to a period 250 years after the information was originally recorded. Most of these are written in Greek (5,656) with many others written in various languages. In total there are 24,970 full manuscripts, partial manuscripts, and fragments. When all of these are compared to one another, what we see is that what's recorded in later copies is the exact same as the earlier ones. Compare this to secular writings. The earliest of only ten known copies of Caesar's Gallic Wars was written 1000 years after the original would have been recorded. The earliest of seven known copies of Pliny Secundus' Natural History was written 750 after the original. By comparing the numbers of copies and the time span between when the original manuscripts would've been written and the earliest known copies, not to mention the number of copies that can be compared against one another, it seems more likely the Bible can be shown to be much more accurate than the secular books. So it must be asked, why do non-Christians believe the information in the non-Christian books and then state the Bible is false or inaccurate?
There are non-Christians who argue the Bible can't be reliable because archaeology has proven that a lot of the towns, cities, and geography is wrong. If someone can prove the writers were so wrong about stuff that can proven or dis-proven by science, then nothing else should be taken as fact. While some of the locations mentioned in the Bible have been covered up though time and not yet discovered, that doesn't mean the writers were wrong. On the other hand, what science has uncovered has proven the facts to be true. Of names and locations mentioned in the book of Acts, the writers were accurate and properly named and located thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands. These facts have led the scholar Nelson Glueck to say "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible".
When the previous arguments put forth by non-Christians fail to sway Christians to their way of thinking, they fall back on the argument that while the geography and history may be accurate and most of the people mentioned really lived during those times, the stories about at least some of the events were mere myths. As a myth, they say, things such as miracles, the resurrection, and other supernatural events were added in order to make it seem as if Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled or simply to convince people to follow a new religion. What they intentionally fail to mention is the fact of how close to the actual events the information was recorded. Even if the original manuscripts were written, in the form of books or letters, fifty years after the events, there were still people alive who could verify or deny they happened. If it were only a few people at a time who were convinced a lie was the truth, it's possible these people may have been willing to stick to the lie and pass it along. Eventually, over a long period of time, there would be people who didn't witness the events who could be convinced a myth was true. Yet we read there were times when hundreds or thousands of people witnessed the events. Were all of these people convinced something happened that really didn't by mass hypnosis or some other means? Were they all deluded or mentally disturbed in some way? Highly doubtful.
Christians aren't supposed to believe some events occurred because they sound too far-fetched to non-Christians, although those events were recorded within the lifetimes of many of the witnesses. Those events are also recorded in thousands of copies that were hand-written centuries later and accurately match the originals. Yet we're to believe every fact found in the Gallic Wars as written by Caesar when the first known copy in existence is dated to 1000 years after the events, there are no earlier copies available to check the presented facts for accuracy, and no one was still alive to verify what really happened during the wars. With this and the other statements in this thread, Christians should have confidence that the Bible is accurate and reliable.
* The information for this thread comes for various sources. Although not provided here in detail, they can be found, along with more details about the information in The New Evidence the Demands a Verdict by Josh D McDowell (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999).
Copyright © 2024 by Sheila Rae Myers