A Few Bible facts & truths

[voiceoftruth]

Hi All.

I thought I would post some Bible facts for anyone who may need them. I have in the past come across lots of people who claim that the Bible is not true & that it does not have anything in it that proves it as being of divine inspiration if you know what I mean. So here are a few little facts that show the truth of the Bible, that show of its divine inspiration, that prove it gave knowledge that no one knew or could have known, you will see what I am talking about if you read this post. But I am sure that the information that is in this post will be of use to anyone who is talking to another person who makes these same claims.

God Bless
VoT

[B] THE BIBLE'S MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE:

Unlike the Quran, when we consider the New Testament manuscripts (MSS) we are astounded by the sheer numbers of extent copies which are in existence. Muslims contend, however, that since we do not have the original documents, the reliability of the copies we do have is thus in doubt. Yet is this assumption correct?

(1) New Testament Manuscript Copies:

Because the Bible is a book, it was initially made up of manuscripts. Consequently a primary means for ascertaining its credibility today are the number of copies from those manuscripts which are currently in one's possession. The more copies we have the better we can compare between them and thus know if the document we now read corresponds with the original. It is much like a witness to an event. If we have only one witness to the event, there is the possibility that the witness's agenda or even an exaggeration of the event has crept in and we would never know the full truth. But if we have many witnesses, the probability that they all got it wrong becomes minute.

Because of time and wear many of the historical documents from the ancient world have few manuscripts to which we can refer. This is specially true when we consider the secular historians and philosophers. For instance, we only have eight copies of Herodotus's historical works, whose originals were written in 480-425 BC. Likewise, only 5 copies of Aristotle's writings have found their way to the 20th century, while only 10 copies of the writings of Caesar, along with another 20 copies of the historian Tacitus, and 7 copies from the historian Pliny, who all originally wrote in the first century, are available today (McDowell 1972:42). These are indeed very few.

When we consider the New Testament, however, we find a completely different scenario. We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! (taken from McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57). Though we do not have any originals, with such a wealth of documentation at our disposal with which to compare, we can delineate quite closely what those originals contained.

What's more, a substantial number were written well before the compilation of the Quran. In fact, according to research done by Kurt and Barbara Aland, a total of 230 manuscript portions are currently in existence which pre-date 600 AD! These can be broken down into 192 Greek New Testament manuscripts, 5 Greek lectionaries containing scripture, and 33 translations of the Greek New Testament (Aland 1987:82-83).

Muslims assert that we have similar problems concerning the large number of years which separate the manuscripts from the events which they speak about. Yet, unlike the Quran which was compiled much more recently, we do not find with the Bible such an enormous gap of time between that which the Bible speaks about and when it was written down. In fact, outside of the book of Revelation and the three letters of John considered to have been written later, when we look at the rest of the New Testament books, there is no longer any solid basis for dating them later than 80 AD, or 50 years after the death of Jesus Christ (Robinson 1976:79). Most of the New Testament was likely written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and perhaps before the fire of Rome (64 AD), and the subsequent persecution of Christians, since none of these events, which would have had an enormous impact on the nascent Christian community are mentioned in any of the New Testament writings. Had the documents been compiled in the second century as Muslims claim, then certainly they would have mentioned these very important events.

This same logic can be taken a step further. Take for instance the martyrdoms of James in 62 AD, Paul in 64 AD, and Peter in 65 AD. All were leaders in the nascent church. Thus their deaths were momentous events for the early Christian community. Yet we find none of the deaths referred to in any of the 27 canonized books of the New Testament (and significantly not in Acts, the most comprehensive historical record we have of the early church). The only explanation can be that they were all written prior to these events, and thus likely before 62 AD, or a mere 30 years after the death of Jesus, of whose life they primarily refer.

(2) Available Manuscripts:

A further criticism concerns whether the copies we possess are credible. Since we do not possess the originals, people ask, how can we be sure they are identical to them? The initial answer is that we will never be completely certain, for there is no means at our disposal to reproduce the originals. This has always been a problem with all known ancient documents. Yet this same question is rarely asked of other historical manuscripts which we refer to constantly. If they are held to be credible, let's then see how the New Testament compares with them. Let's compare below the time gaps for the New Testament documents with other credible secular documents.

There were several historians of the ancient world whose works are quite popular. Thucydides, who wrote History of the Peloponnesian War, lived from 460 BC to 400 BC. Virtually everything we know about the war comes from his history. Yet, the earliest copy of any manuscripts of Thucydides' work dates around 900 AD, a full 1,300 years later! The Roman historian Suetonius lived between AD 70 to 140 AD. Yet the earliest copy of his book The Twelve Caesars is dated around AD 950, a full 800 years later. The chart below reveals the time gaps of these and other works from the ancient world and compares them to the earliest New Testament manuscripts (taken from McDowell 1972:42, & Bruce 1943:16-17).

Author Date Written Earliest Copy Time Span Copies (extent)

Secular Manuscripts:
Herodotus (History) 480 - 425 BC 900 AD 1,300 years 8
Thucydides (History) 460 - 400 BC 900 AD 1,300 years ?
Aristotle (Philosopher) 384 - 322 BC 1,100 AD 1,400 years 5
Caesar (History) 100 - 44 BC 900 AD 1,000 years 10
Pliny (History) 61 - 113 AD 850 AD 750 years 7
Suetonius (Roman History) 70 - 140 AD 950 AD 800 years ?
Tacitus (Greek History) 100 AD 1,100 AD 1,000 years 20

Biblical Manuscripts: (note: these are individual manuscripts)
Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26) 1st century 50-60 AD co-existant (?)
John Rylands (John) 90 AD 130 AD 40 years
Bodmer Papyrus II (John) 90 AD 150-200 AD 60-110 years
Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.) 1st century 200 AD 150 years
Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels) 1st century 200 AD 150 years
Codex Vaticanus (Bible) 1st century 325-350 AD 275-300 years
Codex Sinaiticus (Bible) 1st century 350 AD 300 years
Codex Alexandrinus (Bible) 1st century 400 AD 350 years

(Total New Testament manuscripts = 5,300 Greek MSS, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others = 24,000 copies)
(Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230)

What one notices almost immediately from the table is that the New Testament manuscript copies which we possess today were compiled very early, a number of them hundreds of years before the earliest copy of a secular manuscript. This not only shows the importance the early Christians gave to preserving their scriptures, but the enormous wealth we have today for early Biblical documentation.

What is even more significant however, are the differences in time spans between the original manuscripts and the copies of both the biblical and secular manuscripts. It is well known in historical circles that the closer a document can be found to the event it describes the more credible it is. The time span for the biblical manuscript copies listed above are all within 350 years of the originals, some as early as 130-250 years and one even purporting to coexist with the original (i.e. the Magdalene Manuscript fragments of Matthew 26), while the time span for the secular manuscript copies are much greater, between 750-1,400 years! This indeed gives enormous authority to the biblical manuscript copies, as no other ancient piece of literature can make such close time comparisons.

Because of its importance to our discussion here a special note needs to be given to the Magdalene Manuscript mentioned above. Until two years ago, the oldest assumed manuscript which we possessed was the St. John papyrus (P52), housed in the John Rylands museum in Manchester, and dated at 120 AD (Time April 26, 1996, pg.8). Thus, it was thought that the earliest New Testament manuscript could not be corroborated by eyewitnesses to the events. That assumption has now changed, for three even older manuscripts, one each from the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke have now been dated earlier than the Johannine account. It is two of these three findings which I believe will completely change the entire focus of the critical debate on the authenticity of the Bible. Let me explain.

The Lukan papyrus, situated in a library in Paris has been dated to the late 1st century or early 2nd century, so it predates the John papyrus by 20-30 years (Time April 26, 1996, pg.8). But of more importance are the manuscript findings of Mark and Matthew! New research which has now been uncovered by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and is published in his newly released book on the subject, the Jesus Papyrus mentions a fragment from the book of Mark found among the Qumran scrolls (fragment 7Q5) showing that it was written sometime before 68 AD It is important to remember that Christ died in 33 AD, so this manuscript could have been written, at the latest, within 35 years of His death; possibly earlier, and thus during the time that the eyewitnesses to that event were still alive!

The most significant find, however, is a manuscript fragment from the book of Matthew (chapt.26) called the Magdalene Manuscript which has been analysed by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and also written up in his book The Jesus Papyrus. Using a sophisticated analysis of the handwriting of the fragment by employing a special state-of-the-art microscope, he differentiated between 20 separate micrometer layers of the papyrus, measuring the height and depth of the ink as well as the angle of the stylus used by the scribe. After this analysis Thiede was able to compare it with other papyri from that period; notably manuscripts found at Qumran (dated to 58 AD), another at Herculaneum (dated prior to 79 AD), a further one from the fortress of Masada (dated to between 73/74 AD), and finally a papyrus from the Egyptian town of Oxyrynchus. The Magdalene Manuscript fragments matches all four, and in fact is almost a twin to the papyrus found in Oxyrynchus, which bears the date of 65/66 AD Thiede concludes that these papyrus fragments of St. Matthew's Gospel were written no later than this date and probably earlier. That suggests that we either have a portion of the original gospel of Matthew, or an immediate copy which was written while Matthew and the other disciples and eyewitnesses to the events were still alive. This would be the oldest manuscript portion of our Bible in existence today, one which co-exists with the original writers!

What is of even more importance is what it says. The Matthew 26 fragment uses in its text nomina sacra (holy names) such as the diminutive "IS" for Jesus and "KE" for Kurie or Lord (The Times, Saturday, December 24, 1994). This is highly significant for our discussion today, because it suggests that the godhead of Jesus was recognised centuries before it was accepted as official church doctrine at the council of Nicea in 325 AD There is still ongoing discussion concerning the exact dating of this manuscript. However, if the dates prove to be correct then this document alone completely eradicates the criticism levelled against the gospel accounts (such as the "Jesus Seminar") that the early disciples knew nothing about Christ's divinity, and that this concept was a later redaction imposed by the Christian community in the second century (AD).

We have other manuscript evidence for the New Testament as well:

(3) Versions or Translations:
Besides the 24,000 manuscripts we have more than 15,000 existing copies of the various versions written in the Latin and Syriac (Christian Aramaic), some of which were written as early as 150 A.D., such as the Syriac Peshitta (150-250 A.D.) (McDowell 1972:49; 1990:47).

Because Christianity was a missionary faith from its very inception (Matthew 28:19-20), the scriptures were immediately translated into the known languages of that period. For that reason other written translations appeared soon after, such as Coptic translations (early 3rd and 4th centuries), Armenian (400 A.D.), Gothic (4th century), Georgian (5th century), Ethiopic (6th century), and Nubian (6th century) (McDowell 1972:48-50). The fact that we have so many translations of the New Testament points to its authenticity, as it would have been almost impossible, had the disciples or later followers wanted to corrupt or forge its contents, for them to have amassed all of the translations from the outlying areas and changed each one so that there would have been the uniformity which we find witnessed in these translations today.

(4) Lectionaries:
The practice of reading passages from the New Testament books at worship services began from the 6th century, so that today we have 2,135 lectionaries which have been catalogued from this period (McDowell 1972:52). If there had been a forgery, they too would have all had to have been changed.

(5) Early Church Father's Letters:
But possibly the greatest attestation for the authority of our New Testament are the masses of quotations taken from its pages by the early church fathers. Dean Burgon in his research found in all 86,489 quotes from the early church fathers (McDowell 1990:47-48; 1991:52). In fact, there are 32,000 quotations from the New Testament found in writings from before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. (Mcdowell Evidence, 1972:52). J. Harold Greenlee points out that the quotations of the scripture in the works of the early church writers are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testament manuscripts.

Sir David Dalrymple sought to do this, and from the second and third century writings of the church fathers he found the entire New Testament quoted except for eleven verses (McDowell 1972:50-51; 1990:48)! Thus, we could throw the New Testament manuscripts away and still reconstruct it with the simple help of these letters. Some examples of these are (from McDowell's Evidence..., 1972 pg. 51):
Clement (30- 95 A.D.) quotes from various sections of the New Testament.
Ignatius (70-110 A.D.) knew the apostles and quoted directly from 15 of the 27 books.
Polycarp (70-156 A.D.) was a disciple of John and quoted from the New Testament.
Thus the manuscript evidence at our disposal today gives us over 24,000 manuscripts with which to corroborate our current New Testament. The earliest of these manuscripts have now been dated earlier than 60-70 A.D., so within the lifetime of the original writers, and with an outside possibility that they are the originals themselves. On top of that we have 15,000 early translations of the New Testament, and over 2,000 lectionaries. And finally we have scriptural quotations in the letters of the early Church fathers with which we could almost reproduce the New Testament if we so wished. This indeed is substantial manuscript evidence for the New Testament.


So what comparisons are there between the manuscript evidence for the Quran and the Bible? We know from the historical record that by the end of the seventh century the Arabs had expanded right across North Africa and up into Spain, and east as far as India. The Quran (according to later Islamic tradition) was the centrepiece of their faith and practice at that time. Certainly within that enormous sphere of influence there should therefore be some Quranic manuscripts which still exist till this day. Yet, there is nothing from that period at all. The only manuscripts which Islam provides turn out to have been compiled in the ninth century, while the earliest corroborated manuscript is dated 790 A.D., written not 1400 years ago as Muslims claim but a mere 1,200 years ago.

While Christianity can claim more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, 10,000 Latin Vulgates and at least 9,300 other early versions, adding up to over 24,000 corroborated New Testament manuscripts still in existence (McDowell 1990:43-55), most of which were written between 25-400 years after the death of Christ (or between the 1st and 5th centuries) (McDowell 1972:39-49), Islam cannot provide a single manuscript until well into the eighth century (Lings & Safadi 1976:17; Schimmel 1984:4-6). If the Christians could retain so many thousands of ancient manuscripts, all of which were written long before the Quran, at a time when paper had not yet been introduced, forcing the dependency on papyrus which disintegrated with age, then one wonders why the Muslims are not able to forward a single manuscript from this much later period, during which the Quran was supposedly revealed? This indeed gives the Bible a much stronger claim for reliability than the Qur'an.

Furthermore, while the earliest New Testament manuscripts as well as the earliest letters from the church fathers correspond with the New Testament which we have in our hands, providing us with some certainty that they have not been unduly added to or tampered with, the Quranic material which we have in our possession abounds with stories whose origins we can now trace to second century Jewish and Christian apocryphal literature. We know in some cases who wrote them, when exactly they were written and at times even why they were written; and that none of them were from a divine source, as they were written by the most human of Rabbis and storytellers over the intervening centuries after the Bible had been canonized.

We now turn our attention to the documentary evidence for both the Quran and the Bible.


On Medical Knowledge

The Bible has been the guide for all aspects of life for the Israelites coming out of Egypt. In The Book of Leviticus, laws have been set by God to guide the people on the dangers of eating animal that have died naturally or touching dead human bodies was considered unclean as they could contain infectious diseases. God has already established sanitation laws and quarantine laws long ago.

In the Book of Numbers, chapter 19:14-17 the washing with running water was commanded after touching a dead body. In the Book of Leviticus chapter 13:46 God declared concerning plagues and diseases: "He shall dwell alone: his habitation shall be outside the camp." Since God knew that infections are carried by germs that cannot be seen by the naked eye. The bubonic plague that killed one third of Europe was called The Black Plague between 1200 - 1400 A.D. was finally solved by searching the pages of the Bible and finding the Quarantine law set by God. These rules that were set by God for reasons of preserving human life was not known to man until a few centuries ago.

On The Stars

Many verses relating to science in the Bible are not even mentioned in the Quran. In Genesis 15:5, God speaks to Abraham; "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him. "So shall your descendants be." While Abraham thought that his descendants would be over a thousand the Bible new that our galaxy alone had over 200 million stars called the Milky Way.



On the Hydrological Cycle and Weather

Unlike the Quran which claims to be more superior than the Bible, the Bible claims scientific knowledge in science that no honest Muslim scholar can deny. On the hydrological cycle and weather for example the Bible details the complex weather system far and beyond the claims of modern Muslim scholars on the areas of evaporation, cloud formation and rain.

In Job God declares: "For He looketh at the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven; to establish a weight over the wind, and apportion the waters by measure. When He made a law for the rain and a path for the thunderbolt" (Job 28:24-26).

The Quran does not record such a find by Job, which confirms a modern scientific find in the last century that the air and the wind patterns are governed by their actual weight. Another discovery by modern science is found in Ecclesiastes as God declares: "All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full; to the place from which the rivers come, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:7). The most recent study by the United States Department of Agriculture proved that most of the water that makes the clouds worldwide comes from the evaporating water found in the oceans which covers 70% of the globe.

On another verse God declares through Job: "Do you know how the clouds are balanced, those wondrous works of Him who is perfect in knowledge?" (Job 37:16).

In another verse God describes the full water cycle which is not mentioned in the Quran as God declares: "For He draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man. Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds, the thunders from His canopy?" (Job 36:27-29). In another verse Job describes the springs of the sea: "Have you entered the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in search of the depths?" (Job 38:16).

How did Job over 30 centuries ago have discovered what modern oceanic research knew 3 decades ago by underwater exploration of the very deep ocean? How did King Solomon know that the planetary winds followed a circular pattern from south to north and south again which determine the weather pattern throughout the globe, as God revealed through him: "The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north; the wind whirls about continually, and comes again on it's circuit" (Ecclesiastes 1:6).

On Orion

In the Book of Amos chapter 5 verse 8 which speaks of the constellation known as "Pleiades" it reads; "Seek Him that maketh the seven stars and Orion." This is referring to the seven star in the constellation known as Pleiades. In the King James Version the translators confirmed that Amos original Hebrew statement about "the seven stars" referred to Pleiades while the modern translators refer to it as "Pleiades and Orion" since the early translators were puzzled as the assumption was always of a six star constellation of Pleiades known to the naked eye. However. modern science today confirm the existence of a seventh star which can be detected only by the modern telescope.

How did a book which is considered less than the Quran know this fact?

[mattfivefour]

What's really interesting too, VoT, is not just the early date and reliability of the manuscripts but their contents as well. In at least two cases the contents can be dated within 2 years of Jesus' crucifixion. No other ancient document is so close to the date of the events it describes as is the Bible ... including the NT. Not even close!

God's Word is awesome!

[Robert]

I'm bookmarking this.

[Ort]

Me too. Thanks VOT.

[Danaya]

In at least two cases the contents can be dated within 2 years of Jesus' crucifixion.

Just curious could you tell me which case you are referring to? TIA

[voiceoftruth]

Hi All.

You are so right Matt, that is what baffles me about those who claim that non of this is true. All the facts are out there, all the evidence as is above, is there for all to see & read. As you say some of that evidence is within 2 years of Christs crucifiction & yet so many try to claim all they do about it all. But you get those same people on the subject of evolution & they will argue with you on evidence that is so loose, so much built on sand & quick sand at that. These people will argue with you till they are blue in the face that you just look at that evidence as that evidence is there for all to see. Yet the truth of the word & the facts & proof that surrounds it all, they will try to find the slightest crack, blemish whatever they can & from that one little point then claim its all false, its beyond belief. There logic is so twisted its beyond belief, but we should know that this is what we are all up against, as we are told that in the word. That in the last days this is the kind of thing we will find, I just pray each day that we are to be taken home soon.

God Bless you all
VoT

[mattfivefour]

Originally Posted by mattfivefour: "In at least two cases the contents can be dated within 2 years of Jesus' crucifixion."

Just curious could you tell me which case you are referring to? TIA

From Biblical and non-Biblical sources we know that Luke wrote the book of Acts. It ends with Paul still under house arrest in Rome. Clearly the book of Acts was finished before Paul was put to death. Paul was executed in 62 AD, therefore the book had to have been completed prior to that.

Jesus was crucified between 30 and 33 AD. (I believe from various datings of his birth that He was crucified in 30 AD.) So already we have an account of the spread of Christianity written within 30 years of His death and resurrection.

Now Acts was the second book written by Luke. Prior to this he wrote the book known as the Gospel of Luke. So the gospel of Luke was written 25 to 30 years after the events it describes … well within the lifetime of the witnesses.

It is generally accepted that Paul’s conversion occurred about 2 years after the start of the Church. If we accept (as I do) that 30 AD was the date of the Crucifixion, then Paul was saved about 32 AD. At that time he was led into Damascus (having been struck blind) and was introduced to a Christian named Ananias who prayed for him and his sight was restored. Paul then joined Ananias and the other Christians in Damascus (Acts 9:1-25; Acts 26:4-23).

In his own words, Paul says three years later he went to Jerusalem to meet the apostles (Galatians 1:18). This means he met them in 35 AD. (Note this was before Peter saw his vision, had the visit from Cornelius, and realized that the gospel was for the Gentiles as well.) Paul and Barnabas were then chosen by the apostles to go on a missionary trip to other parts of the Roman Empire, specifically Asia Minor (Acts 13:1 and following). Note that in Acts 16, the narrative changes from third person to first person … from “they” to “we”. This is the point at which Luke joins Paul and witnesses first hand the events. Now we have Luke the writer of Acts recording material within just a few years (maybe 7 or 10) after the crucifixion and Jesus’ return to heaven.

As to Paul, himself, by analyzing his epistles and cross-referencing with extra-biblical history we can determine that Paul began writing them in the late 40’s, with most of his major letters being written in the 50's. This is amazingly close to the actual events! There is nothing like it in other ancient historical documents. For example, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great—written by Plutarch and Arrian—were written more than 400 years after his death! Yet historians regard them as reasonably accurate, because that is early as far as ancient histories go! As historical scholar Dr. Craig Blomberg said, “Compared with accounts of Alexander the Great, the accounts of Jesus are like a news flash.”

But it gets better. Scholars have identified three creeds in Paul’s letters. (A creed is A formal statement of religious belief used to preserve the truth of a faith’s underpinnings.) One is in Colossians 1:15-20. Another is in Philippians 2:6-11. (I’ll let you look them up yourself). The most famous one—one where Paul repeats it to his readers—is found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.

“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Peter, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.”

Read the entire context, though—1 Corinthians 15:1-11.

Now Paul here is saying that he was given this creed. Creeds were given to new believers so that they could understand the essential facts of their faith. As Paul says here, he delivered this creed to the Corinthians “first of all”. As soon as they expressed their faith in Jesus Christ, he gave them that creed. But clearly, from his own words, it is a creed he was given by others. This would have occurred when he, too, was a new believer. So this creed was given him either by Ananias and the other Christian disciples in Damascus … or perhaps three years later by the apostles in Jerusalem. Either way, it is incredibly early … between 2 and 5 years after the events they describe: namely the crucifixion of Jesus, his burial, resurrection, and post-resurrection appearances.

Hope this helps.