Is The Bible Inerrant?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Newdad said:
One book, however, that I found both interesting and troubling was Dr. Bart Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus. I'm sure many have heard of this but it is a historical account of textual criticism of the Bible.
Click to expand...

The message is true and faithful to its promise.
Man is such a lousy messenger.
Man is a lousy receiver as well.

Not to mention that the enemy is trying to cut the line, create a parallel saviour in false religion, etc….

What’s worst, a critic coming in his own name is criticizing the lousy messenger?

What more worst, a person like me who haven’t read his book is criticising his book!

What a lousy world we live in : )

some related thoughts in mind....

John 10
The Shepherd Knows His Sheep
22 Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter. 23 And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon’s porch. 24 Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, “How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.”
25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.[b] 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.”

John 5
The Fourfold Witness
31 “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true.32 There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true.33 You have sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth.34 Yet I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved.35 He was the burning and shining lamp, and you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light.36 But I have a greater witness than John’s; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish—the very works that I do—bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me.37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.38 But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe.39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
41 “I do not receive honor from men. 42 But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. 43 I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. 44 How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God? 45 Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

Matthew 5
Stumbling Blocks
7 “Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!
 
Last edited:
Although my post above can be viewed as fallacy: ‘ad hominem”, that is: attacking the person, instead of his argument…

i don;t think so...

My point is, he is attacking an irrelevant issue: inerrancy.

In the same manner with his another issue: “Problem of Evil”

“Problem of Evil” is not a problem.
 
Last edited:
Lifeasweknowit said:
Yes, but here we reach another discussion and that is of those who do not believe the 10 commandments are to be followed anymore. If we keep the Ten Commandments, then we keep the entire mosaic law, and I don't think things on earth would be that great if we did.
Click to expand...

The Ten Commandments nor the Law saves us, but that does not mean we do not need to keep them. Obedience to God's known Law is still commanded. As a servant of God, and one who has accepted Jesus as Lord, I never quite understand who anyone would claim Christ, and then refuse to be obedient to God's Will. Jesus even said in John 15 "“This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.13 Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. You are My friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you." We do not need to earn our Salvation through obedience, but through Christ alone. Really, just as Christ told us the entirety of the Law resides within the Law of Love, then it really seems counter-intuitive to violate them. If you love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, why would you worship a false god? If you love your neighbor as much as yourself, why would you ever steal from them or murder them? In this way, the law is not abolished, but fulfilled.
 
Lifeasweknowit said:
Wait a second, I'm confused. I thought the bible is the perfect Word of God.
Click to expand...

I think it is.

There in taxation a concept called “substance over the form”…. That is: the substance is more important than the legal form.

Very rich tax payers are paying people good to help them avoid paying tax, while the government is paying people good to catch them by this concept of “substance over the form” : )
 
Last edited:
Lifeasweknowit said:
Yes, but here we reach another discussion and that is of those who do not believe the 10 commandments are to be followed anymore. If we keep the Ten Commandments, then we keep the entire mosaic law, and I don't think things on earth would be that great if we did.
Click to expand...


The 10 Commandments is a good example.
The substance remains, is being applied even to modern law today.

The first 3 refers to basic human question of our identity of “where, who why we are”

#4: rest day: man needs to rest 1 day a week.

#5: relationship with parent, continuity of generation, family as basic unit of society

#6: relationship with fellowman, respect of human life

#7: relationship between husband and wife, faithfulnes

#8: relationship with fruit of your own labour, respect of ownership

#9: relationship with commerce, business or dealings with other people

#10: relationship with own being: contentment, happiness, being thankful of what we have
 
Newdad said:
Hello, this is my very first post on here. Although I have been reading it for months this is my actual first post. My friend recommended I come on here to help answer my questions as I am a Christian newbie. :)

I have been studying the Bible and reading many books about the Bible (mostly pro but some con). One book, however, that I found both interesting and troubling was Dr. Bart Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus. I'm sure many have heard of this but it is a historical account of textual criticism of the Bible. Although I do take the book with a grain of salt, I do agree very much with his main point. How can the Bible be inerrant if we have no original copy as God wrote it and it has been copied and copied over and over through hundreds if not thousands of years? Especially considering many of the people who made copies were practically illiterate. To think that no mistakes were made from the original to a version hundreds of years later that was eventually declared as canon by the church I find troubling. His contention is that there are thousands of old Biblical manuscripts that have since been found that were written and they all are different in some ways. Some are obviously different from errors from a transcriber, but some are different in their additions or subtractions of certain scriptures.

How can the Bible as we know it now be inerrant if for instance John 7:53 (“Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her”) was added after the fact as it wasn't in any of the old Greek Biblical manuscripts from the early times. Or the last 12 verses of Mark having been added much later as those are in the early Biblical manuscripts as well (my version of the Bible even has these verses in brackets). Was the Bible inerrant when it was originally written but is no longer inerrant because of the small changes? I find this to be confusing.

I know there have been discussion on here about Bible contradictions which have been interesting but little has been discussed about textual criticism. If the Bible we have today is different than a Bible found to be dated around 300 AD, one of them is not inerrant. Why is the ESV or KJ version inerrant but not the old Greek Manuscripts from over 1000 years ago?

Thanks :)
Click to expand...
I have always said that a man could be stranded on a desert island and have a Living Bible wash up on shore, and still have the essence of truth that is needed to be born again... that we died when Christ died, that we got new natures when Jesus arose, and our salvation is a matter of heart hunger, not head understanding.

We have fallen into the trap of trying to grow by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thinking our understanding is what needs improvement, when it our heart that is the area that improvement must be made in. We want to make it a scientific fact and the truth is, faith will never be obtained when we finally dissect and mentally understand the word of God. If that was the case, Peter would still be studying the laws of physics to figure out how it is possible to walk on water, wouldn't he? The early disciples, we are told, were simple and unlearned men for the most part, and yet they still turned the entire known world upside down in one generation.

We are told:

"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled."

We are told it is they that love the light, who want to BE light who shall come to it. not those who stumble over all the reasons why, as fallen humans, we can never be light and settle for less. Jesus said that we will seek Him and we will find him, when we seek Him with out whole HEART.

I do not want to discourage you from study of the Word, but realize that true growth in the likeness of the Son does not come from mental ascent and solving all the mysteries of godliness but being enlightened by the Spirit of God because our hearts refuse to go on without His righteousness in us.

Blessings,

Gideon
 
Food for thought; read ALL of Galatians 3:

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
 
Whenever someone says that scripture is not inerrant, I know that they have not read it or lack common sense.

God literally wrote the ten commandments for Moses. There are four gospels included that all confirm what Jesus said and did. Jesus never hammered the Pharisees for the scrolls they had. He praised them for obeying them. Thereby confirming there validity. These being the laws of Moses. You have to give a mentally handicapped person the pen to get a law wrong. If God wrote ''you shall not commit adultery''...you cannot change that without the vast majority of sane people complaining! Likewise, other laws that Moses made. The stories are no train smash. We just need to grasp that since many make the Jews look bad, it has a greater chance of being accurate.

Then there is all the prophecies http://www.reasons.org/articles/art...ecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible.

Then on the apostles teaching in the NT http://www.gospelway.com/bible/apostolic_teaching.php

Some excerpts:

Apostles were especially chosen and called personally by God to be apostles. Paul was chosen specifically Acts 9:15.

If Paul's claim to be an apostle was not true, he would not even have been a faithful preacher. He would have been a false apostle, a false prophet, a liar, and a hypocrite. But Paul's claim to be inspired and a faithful teacher was confirmed by many other inspired men.

Apostles had to be eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ. Apostles were empowered by the Spirit to do miraculous signs to confirm that they were inspired by the Spirit. Apostles could lay hands on others and bestow on them the power to do miracles.

Lastly, The common sense fact that since there is a God...and none of us living are yet literally with Him...that He make known to us the means of getting to Him....and should that means / book become defiled to the point that none get to Him...He end things with us. We are still living, so there is still an accurate guide / book to Him.
 
Newdad said:
Hello, this is my very first post on here. Although I have been reading it for months this is my actual first post. My friend recommended I come on here to help answer my questions as I am a Christian newbie. :)

I have been studying the Bible and reading many books about the Bible (mostly pro but some con). One book, however, that I found both interesting and troubling was Dr. Bart Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus. I'm sure many have heard of this but it is a historical account of textual criticism of the Bible. Although I do take the book with a grain of salt, I do agree very much with his main point. How can the Bible be inerrant if we have no original copy as God wrote it and it has been copied and copied over and over through hundreds if not thousands of years? Especially considering many of the people who made copies were practically illiterate. To think that no mistakes were made from the original to a version hundreds of years later that was eventually declared as canon by the church I find troubling. His contention is that there are thousands of old Biblical manuscripts that have since been found that were written and they all are different in some ways. Some are obviously different from errors from a transcriber, but some are different in their additions or subtractions of certain scriptures.

How can the Bible as we know it now be inerrant if for instance John 7:53 (“Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her”) was added after the fact as it wasn't in any of the old Greek Biblical manuscripts from the early times. Or the last 12 verses of Mark having been added much later as those are in the early Biblical manuscripts as well (my version of the Bible even has these verses in brackets). Was the Bible inerrant when it was originally written but is no longer inerrant because of the small changes? I find this to be confusing.

I know there have been discussion on here about Bible contradictions which have been interesting but little has been discussed about textual criticism. If the Bible we have today is different than a Bible found to be dated around 300 AD, one of them is not inerrant. Why is the ESV or KJ version inerrant but not the old Greek Manuscripts from over 1000 years ago?

Thanks :)
Click to expand...
You are only guilty of one error here and that is easily corrected. You need to download a free copy or purchase a Hard Copy of the Nave's Topical Bible. You can download a free copy from www.e-sword.net when you download the free e-Sword Bible Program.

You'll want to begin with the topic, Faith. Once you have a fair grasp on this one, a month or so should do if you devote 15 mins. a day to it, begin the study of God. A completed study of God will take a life time plus but after a year or so you will understand what I'm about to tell you.

God is not a man, as the Mormans and LDS claim that he once was. God is so unlimited in the scope of His power and influence. For this reason it and the truth that God loves, it is impossible for the Bible to contain errors and to stand the tests of time.

I have never done a study on how many errant translations of the scriptures have failed over the years but I do know the present Errant Translation, used by the JWs, is fallen and refused by all but the Witnesses. When one takes the time to prayerfully read, meditate on and to study the Word of God, he learns that God, more than once, warns that any who add to or any who subtract from the record God has seen recorded will be cursed with curses here and in the After life.

I pray for your faith and that you will begin to study, hard.
 
Newdad said:
Hello, this is my very first post on here. Although I have been reading it for months this is my actual first post. My friend recommended I come on here to help answer my questions as I am a Christian newbie. :)

I have been studying the Bible and reading many books about the Bible (mostly pro but some con). One book, however, that I found both interesting and troubling was Dr. Bart Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus. I'm sure many have heard of this but it is a historical account of textual criticism of the Bible. Although I do take the book with a grain of salt, I do agree very much with his main point. How can the Bible be inerrant if we have no original copy as God wrote it and it has been copied and copied over and over through hundreds if not thousands of years? Especially considering many of the people who made copies were practically illiterate. To think that no mistakes were made from the original to a version hundreds of years later that was eventually declared as canon by the church I find troubling. His contention is that there are thousands of old Biblical manuscripts that have since been found that were written and they all are different in some ways. Some are obviously different from errors from a transcriber, but some are different in their additions or subtractions of certain scriptures.

How can the Bible as we know it now be inerrant if for instance John 7:53 (“Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her”) was added after the fact as it wasn't in any of the old Greek Biblical manuscripts from the early times. Or the last 12 verses of Mark having been added much later as those are in the early Biblical manuscripts as well (my version of the Bible even has these verses in brackets). Was the Bible inerrant when it was originally written but is no longer inerrant because of the small changes? I find this to be confusing.

I know there have been discussion on here about Bible contradictions which have been interesting but little has been discussed about textual criticism. If the Bible we have today is different than a Bible found to be dated around 300 AD, one of them is not inerrant. Why is the ESV or KJ version inerrant but not the old Greek Manuscripts from over 1000 years ago?

Thanks :)
Click to expand...

Hello Newdad. I welcome you and hope that you stay with us for awhile. I see that you have had a lot of good answers to your question already. I believe that your original concern was "Textual Criticism".

Textual Criticism is the science of deciding the truest Biblical reading by comparing one historical text with other historical texts. Often textual critics decide that a certain verse or group of verses is an untrue reading. That is to say, they doubt that it was a part of the oldest manuscripts.

Examples are the one you posted of John 7:53-8:11. Also Mark 16:9-20. The doxology or conclusion of the Lord's prayer as well.
Because scholars examine a text and decide that it does not belong to the Bible, some then conclude by that, that the Bible contains errors. Questioning the ending of Mark's gospel does not imply that the Gospel is in error. Textual Criticism points us to the truthfulness of the genuine or authentic text.

The Bible generally represents things as they appear to be. For example, the Bible refers to a sunrise when it fact the sun does not rise at all. It is the earth that rotates on its axis as the sun does not move at all. That is the action of describing things as they appear. IT is not a mistake or error in Scripture when the Bible writers do the same thing.

The Bible is a book of events and communication from common everyday people from once source.....God. The differences among the writers themselves point to the real humanness of the Biblical text, That is Diversity, or variety in the sense of variations, and is found in the expression of the central message of the Scriptures which is of course the Gospel. The basis of unity is found in the completeness of the Gospel message............BUT, that kind of variety does not imply any contradictions.
 
Lifeasweknowit said:
The bible says to read the word, meditate, and dwell on it. Textual issues are therefore important and need to be addressed!

But as Baranath stated "The inspired reader runs the risk of trivializing or marginalizing genuine, absolute truths, or even turning the Bible into an ordinary history book."

I see this happening with A LOT of believers. Particularly when it comes to sex before marriage, homosexuality, etc.

A lot of people want the bible to work for THEM; THEIR VIEW OF SOCIETY, THEIR LIFE, MORALS, and ETHICS.

How can you have an argument with someone about such topics when there are textual issues? It will turn into a cyclical argument/discussion.
Click to expand...

Very pleased to see you again!

May I say to you that the Bible is filled with warnings about sex outside of marriage. There in lies the problem. We, humans do not like boundaries, so to test the limits we climb fences, run past warning lights and then we face the consequences of what we do. We are prone to adopt the world's thinking about sex, which is a philosophy that looks good on paper but in the end, it just does not work.

The "textual truth" is that God is for sex. He invented sex and told us to take part in it......in the confines of marriage. Ooops. There is that problem again. God is telling us what we should do and WE DO NOT LIKE BEING TOLD WHAT TO DO. But we also know that when we ignore God's recommendations, there will be consequences to take place.

God designed sex to be the most intimate expression of your soul. You can not have sex with your body and leave your soul somewhere else. That is simply impossible. Sex is really not something that we do.......it is actually an expression of all that we are. IT IS RELATIONAL.

That being said.....God designed sex to take place within a "relationship" called Marriage.
 
Lifeasweknowit said:
Yes, but here we reach another discussion and that is of those who do not believe the 10 commandments are to be followed anymore. If we keep the Ten Commandments, then we keep the entire mosaic law, and I don't think things on earth would be that great if we did.
Click to expand...

My dear...........the yoke of Moses was a burden that the Jewish people were not able to keep successfully. Those rituals showed that, no matter how hard people worked, they could never be perfect. They showed, for anyone who ever wondered, that works can never lead to salvation. Salvation is attained in a different way—by grace. We can’t earn it, so it has to be given to us.

Since the law of Moses cannot bring us salvation, there is no need to require the gentiles to keep it. God gave them the Holy Spirit and showed that he accepts them without all those rituals. They are saved by grace, and the Jews are, too.
 
Brother_Mike_V said:
What I find interesting is that we put ourselves under the bondage of law willfully because it appeals to our flesh whether we will admit it or not. We WANT a standard to live by. But then we create our own standard.

Funny thing is-Adam and Eve didn't have the Bible-they KNEW the Lord 100% and in my opinion were living in HEAVEN (Garden) and got kicked out.

When their kids got so far away from God the first time-He sent the Deluge.

When their kids got so far away from God the second time-He came back to set the record straight.

When their kids got so far away from God the third time-He died on the cross.

There won't be a fourth time.

God gave us a standard-we read it and like Him-we reject it for the sake of our own selfishness. But we will bind ourselves willingly to the laws of this world-how hypocritical is that?

We are 'free from the law' when we are 'walking in the Spirit' because we aren't doing anything wrong...

It ain't rocket science. The simplicity of the Gospel is overshadowed by the complexity of our own 'vain imaginations'

Man I have been wanting to use that for a while now....
Click to expand...

Good stuff Mike!
 
Lifeasweknowit said:
Guess I've been taking the literalist standpoint this whole time, which is why these types of OP's are difficult for me to read. I just don't get how a perfect God, would create an imperfect bible, or allow it to come that way. Someone please ease my mind here.
Click to expand...

In looking for an intellectually honest answer, why not consider the evidence?

The question people ask is usually something like this........

"You really believe that the Bible came from God, through the Holy Spirit, to human writers, by original manuscripts, through copies and ancient versions and quotations from early church fathers, then printed editions of the text, through more modern versions to us"?

Seems like a legitimate thoughtful question to me!!!

First of all, remember this.......we need to realize that we cannot prove history! Yes I know how that sounds but remember this, the only thing we can prove is what is observable and repeatable. History is based on EVIDENCE, not PROOF. Our whole legal system is based on that fact. In a courtroom, evidence is presented. The jury looks at evidence. Jurors have to decide using probable cause, whether or not the eyewitnesses or others involved are telling the truth.

Now then, in looking at the evidence that the Bible is the Word of God, we also can make decisions on what is probable, not what is possible. And we must be intellectually honest when we do this looking. An apologist and lawyer, John McDowell put it as.........
"Evidence that demands a Verdict". That means, once all the evidence is considered, we need to do something with that information. We can not ignore it neither can we be in the middle and do nothing with it.

In any textual critical study of historical manuscripts of any type, three (3) tests are used to decide their reliability:

1. The date they were written, origin & condition.
2. The character of the writers.
3. The content of the documents (do they appear mythical or read as if one is hallucinating).

So, what I am trying to do for you is to consider the fact that we need to be intellectually honest as we consider the reliability of the Bible. Now then.........during the 1st century, two important Romans wrote history. Almost no one else wrote about the subjects they covered so that everything we know about the Gallic Wars for example is from these two men.

Caesar wrote during the 1st century but they were not found until 900 years after they were written. We have only 10 copies of this production. There are a few scattered fragments, but there are only 10 copies. Caesar's book is quoted in other history books and no one doubts its authenticity even though there are very few copies and 900 years between their production and discovery.

The other writer of Roman history is Tacitus. He was hired by his father in law who was a general going into battle. He wrote "The Annals" which were about the battles his father in law fought in. Virtually nothing is known about these battles other than what Tacitus wrote about them. He fills in the many gaps in the chronological history during that time.

We do not have all of his letters or manuscripts. We (Society) have only about 60% of his copies and they too are dated to about 950 AD. Even though we do not have any copies to speak of and again there is a time lapse of almost 1000 years, this man's work is an accepted piece of ancient history. No one doubts the authenticity of his work.

Now, I said all of that to say this.......in light of the works of these two men, how does the Bible compare?

A copy of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was found together in one volume, not separate, in A.D. 250. A copy of the gospel of Luke just as it appears in our Bible is dated AD 175. The fragment from John's gospel was dated AD 150. It is fact that Jesus died in AD 30, so there is a small time span between His death and the writings.

By AD 350 there were 5 thousand Greek manuscripts of the New Test. This is the incredible evidence that the news needed to get out to the whole world!!! Our faith must be encouraged when we see how the New Test. so closely follows the actual event and that there are so many of them!
 
I would like to add a practical point. That being "does the text in question live up to it's claims?"
Bear with me here:
In colledge, my first Chem professor woul edit Chemistry books to make a little moeny on the side.
He would follow the directions listed in the Chem book he was editing to see if the experiments would
actually produce the desired results. (i.e. if you are mixing Tollin's reagent with the hope of making mirrors
then if the directions are wrong no mirrors get made)

We know that the Bible is accurate in that the folks who follow it's instructions become changed people.
There have been hundreds of Christian wonderworkers over the centuries, if the Bible were not true, there would have been none.
 
Glomung said:
I would like to add a practical point. That being "does the text in question live up to it's claims?"
Bear with me here:
In colledge, my first Chem professor woul edit Chemistry books to make a little moeny on the side.
He would follow the directions listed in the Chem book he was editing to see if the experiments would
actually produce the desired results. (i.e. if you are mixing Tollin's reagent with the hope of making mirrors
then if the directions are wrong no mirrors get made)

We know that the Bible is accurate in that the folks who follow it's instructions become changed people.
There have been hundreds of Christian wonderworkers over the centuries, if the Bible were not true, there would have been none.
Click to expand...

Excellent point!
 
Newdad said:
How can the Bible be inerrant if we have no original copy as God wrote it and it has been copied and copied over and over through hundreds if not thousands of years?
Click to expand...


Well, you have 2 choices. The first is what God expects from us: faith. In this particular case, the faith that God would preserve His Word.


The other choice is not what God expects from us: look for evidence. Don’t worry, the Bible stands in this regard as well.


The oldest manuscripts of the New Testament that we have are:

- Chester Beatty Papyri (written most probably earlier than year 300)

- Diatessaron (written most probably earlier than year 170)

- the Magdalen papyrus (written most probably before the war that occurred in year 70 – barely a few decades after Christ).


Compared to those manuscripts, our New Testament stands true (although I won’t recommend NIV for example).


Now, compare all that with Caesar’s Gallic Wars - of which the earliest copy that we have is about from year 950, which is a thousand years after the events described therein. And yet nobody doubts the veracity of Caesar’s work.


Also compare with Aristotle’s work - the earliest manuscripts that we have of his works are almost a millennium and a half after Aristotle. And yet again, nobody doubts the veracity of Aristotle’s works.


So even if you choose the historic way of looking at things, you shouldn’t doubt the veracity of the Bible in any way or amount. The Old Testament is also confirmed by several discoveries of ancient manuscripts, including the Red Sea manuscripts.


But this is a very important question, one that accurately describes our faith: while no one in the entire world doubts the veracity of historical, philosophical, mathematical etcetera writings, there are, unfortunately, many people that doubt the veracity of the Bible. Including many, very many Christians. Now, why is that? Why is it that we would rather believe Caesar’s historical reports and not the historical reports about Jesus?


We believe so many things that have a rather fifty-fifty chance of happening – or in that neighborhood. But we don’t believe, or believe it with a small amount of faith, things that have an incredibly less chance to happen. Peter Stoner showed that the mathematical chance for one single man to fulfill only 48 of more than 400 of Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah is one in 10 to 157th power. If you can’t reason that number, don’t worry, no human can. Compare it for example with the number of all the atoms in the (formal) universe, which is 10 to 80th power (that is, 1 followed by 80 zeroes). Now, can you comprehend with your mind all the atoms in the (formal) universe? And can you comprehend a number trillions of trillions of trillions … of trillions times larger than that? You can’t. No human can. (But I know someone who can: God.)


So the Jews and the atheists really have no excuse. The Messiah is indeed Jesus. And the atheists also don’t have an excuse because, furthermore, of the Biblical predictions that turned out to be true, such as cosmic expansion or the Jewish people returning to their homeland.




And I think you have it wrong: “if we have no original copy as God wrote it”. God didn’t write, to my knowledge, anything that’s in the Bible, except for the Ten Commandments, which He actually wrote two times. The first inscription (tablets) of those commands was lost when Moses broke it, in desperation at his people’s idolatry. The second was apparently lost with the Ark of the Covenant.




As for other “religions” (I explained in another thread why I think Christianity is actually the only religion in the world), the earliest written form of Buddha’s teachings that we have is 500 years after his death. Similarly for Confucius and others. Clearly, no divine power was preoccupied with recording and conserving Buddha’s teachings.


The Bible also stands head and shoulders (and then a large part of the body) over any other historical document, considering the number of copies (manuscripts) that we have of it.


For example, all the manuscripts that we have of The Gallic Wars are about 10 in number. We only have about 5 manuscripts of Aristotle‘s works. And only 2 of the chronicles of Cornelius Tacitus. And yet nobody in the entire world doubts the veracity of those works.


However, many in the world (including Christians) doubt the veracity of the Bible. Why is that? Compared to those ridiculously small numbers, do you know how many copies (manuscripts) of the books of the Bible we have? Orders of magnitude more! Altogether, about 22000. That’s more than all the other ancient historical documents TAKEN TOGETHER. The ancient history they teach in the classrooms of the world is based on FEWER documents than the manuscripts of the Bible. And they claim that that history is true, while the Bible is wrong. How is that? Where did they hide their logic?


To conclude, rejecting God has nothing to do with actual science (I talked about this in another thread). Neither, as I showed here, with history. It only has to do with one’s personal choice. A choice that each of us is free to make, but a choice that we will be responsible for. Forever.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top