Is the Bible true?
Hi All.
Here is another little study I came across, you will see who wrote them as you go through them. But as I am sure you will all see the information / facts / proof / evidence given & shown is well worth noting.
God Bless
VoT
Consider this, The Bible is the most reliable book of antiquity - it has more manuscript evidence and less significant variations / deviation than any other book in history, by more than a long shot.
Consider this, The Bible demonstrates its inspired origin in so many different ways, including its inspired doctrine, its historical accuracy, its predictive prophecy and the way that it was wrote & proclaimed by Old and New Testament figures alike, especially Jesus and the 12 disciples, then the 15 apostles.
Is this book the Bible true, The Da Vinci Code's "historian" Teabing declares emphatically that it is not. In the book that book he writes, "Because Constantine upgraded Jesus' status almost four centuries after Jesus' death, thousands of documents already existed chronicling His life as a mortal man. To rewrite the history books, Constantine knew he would need a bold stroke. From this sprang the most profound moment in Christian history. . . . Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned" (p. 234,The Da Vinci Code ). Remember what we have already noted—that Constantine had nothing to do with a "new Bible." As the true Bible had already been wrote & placed in order long before Constantine was ever born.
Teabing's assertions grow even more damaging to orthodox Christianity: "The Bible is a product of man, my dear. Not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book" (p. 231). Later he adds with a chuckle that scholars cannot confirm the authenticity of the Bible (p. 256). What is the evidence behind his accusations?
Note what the Bible claims about itself. Jesus said, "the Scripture cannot be broken" (Jn 10.35). The author of Hebrews adds, "The word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart" (Heb 4:12). And Paul concludes, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16).
But we might expect the Bible to claim to be the trustworthy word of God. Is there objective historical evidence for or against this assertion?
So is the Bible True, Is there's good evidence to prove this
Consider first the manuscript evidence ( this is known as the "bibliographic" test by scholars). No original manuscripts exist for any ancient book. Writing materials were too fragile to stand the passage of centuries. This is also the case for great historical figures like Aristotle, Plato, Julius Caesar, the writings of Buddha and the Koran just as much as it is for the Bible IE: The Old and New Testaments.
However, we possess today some 5,000 ancient Greek copies of the New Testament, and 10,000 copies in other ancient languages. Latin and Coptic copies go back to the second century; fragments of papyrus documents go back to AD 130. Quotations in the writings of early church fathers date to A.D. 100. Complete versions of the Gospels, Acts, Paul's letters and Hebrews date to the early part of the third century; Revelation to the latter half. Complete volumes of the New Testament date to the 4th century. Please note that each of these documents predate Constantine.
Now compare these manuscripts with other ancient documents. Of Caesar's Gallic Wars, we have today only nine or ten good manuscripts, none copied earlier than 900 years after Caesar. For the Histories of Tacitus, we have only 4 of his 14 original books, none copied earlier than the 10th century. For Aristotle's works, we possess only five manuscripts of any one volume, none copied earlier than A.D. 1100 (14 centuries after the original).
Manuscript evidence for the New Testament is remarkable, far more than which exists for any other ancient book. And those who work with these ancient copies (called "textual critics") are convinced that they have been able to recover a Greek New Testament which is virtually identical to the original. Quoting F.F. Bruce again, "The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.
This evidence does not prove that the Bible is the word of God. But it does demonstrate conclusively that the Bible you have is the same as was first written by its authors. When Teabing asserts, "History has never had a definitive version of the book" and claims that scholars cannot confirm the authenticity of the Bible, he's simply wrong, this man is lets say not coming out what the truth ( I think that is nicer than just saying he is lying, don't you ).
Is the Bible the truth, Is there good solid archaeology that shows this.
Let's look next at the evidence for this archaeology shall we. Such findings continue to confirm the geographical and historical veracity of the biblical texts. For instance, the pool of Bethesda (Jn 5:2ff) was once dismissed as historical fiction. Now archaeologists locate it in the northeast quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. This pool has now been seen by many visitors to Israel & so Jerusalem.
Researchers have identified the remains of Caiaphas, the high priest of Jesus' trial and crucifixion. They have discovered the skeleton of Yohanan, a crucifixion victim from AD 70, and note that these remains confirm the details of Jesus' crucifixion as it is described in the gospels. Archaeological evidence strongly supports the trustworthiness of the biblical all the Bible says.
Is the Bible the truth, Consider prophecy
Consider the evidence of fulfilled prophecy. At least 48 major Messianic prophecies can be identified in the Old Testament. Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled each one. Endeavoring to determine the odds of such a phenomenon, mathematician Peter Stoner isolated eight of these 48 prophecies. He then calculated the odds that any one person might have fulfilled them all.
Stoner determined those odds to be one in 10 to the 17th power (one followed by 17 zeroes). Visualize the number this way: take this number in silver dollars and lay them across the state of Texas. They will cover the entire state, two feet deep. Now mark one of those silver dollars. Blindfold a man and tell him he can travel as far as he likes, but he must pick up one silver dollar. What are the chances he will pick the one you marked? the same The same odds that the prophets would have had of writing those eight prophecies and having them all fulfilled in one person.
Is the Bible true? Billions of people across 20 centuries can attest to the fact that the teachings of the Bible have been proven true and authoritative in their personal lives. But even such overwhelming subjective evidence to the side, there is still outstanding evidential reason to believe that the Bible is the trustworthy word of God & I believe has been proven to be so absolutely.
Emperor Constantine
- did he create our Bible?
by Garry Williams, Ph.D. , Tutor in Church History and Doctrine at Oak Hill Theological College in London.
The Da Vinci Code Claims that Emperor Constantine created the New Testament canon - the list of books to be counted as Christian Scripture alongside the Old Testament - and rejected thousands of alternative texts by the Gnostics. Brown writes: 'The fundamental irony of Christianity! The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great' (p. 313).
Emperor Constantine was born after Lists of New Testament books existed
The claim that Constantine created the canon is not true. Emperor Constantine did ask bishop Eusebius of Caesarea to have fifty copies of the New Testament reproduced for the new imperial capital at Constantinople. But the work of collating the New Testament books had been done over the preceding centuries. The evidence for this is abundant. The most famous documentary example is a piece of writing known as the Muratorian fragment. This fragment dates from the end of the second century and is named after the Italian scholar who first published it in 1740. It is a list of books recognized by the church: four Gospels (though the first two are missing due to damage to the fragment), the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen epistles of Paul; three epistles of John; Jude; the Apocalypses of John and Peter. Significantly, the Muratorian canon rejects Gnostic works by Valentinus and others. This is important for showing that Brown is wrong, because it proves that as early as the end of the second century the church was already denying the truth of Gnosticism, and the canon of Scripture was being formed.
Emperor Constantine - Did he remove books from the Bible?
The Da Vinci Code Claims that the four Gospels were selected by Constantine from eighty others. Brown writes: 'Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned' (p. 317). Or again: 'More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion' (p. 313).
This is wrong. Many early Christian texts written well before Constantine's time say that there are and can be only four authoritative Gospels. Irenaeus, who died in around AD200, over a century before Constantine's reign, writes this in his great work Against the Heresies:
It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the church is scattered throughout all the world [...] it is fitting that she should have four pillars [...]. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, [...] who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit. (III. xi. 8; Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:428)
This may seem like a strange argument to us - four winds so four Gospels - but the point is clear. There is no evidence that there were ever anywhere near eighty Gospels, and the selection was made many years before Emperor Constantine was even born.
Is the Bible true?
Consider This: There are two main types of documents contained in the scrolls: Biblical books (all except Esther), and a large collection of documents, some complete, some in fragments of stuff written by the Essenes. However, there is no Christian literature in the Dead Sea scrolls at all!
Consider This: Not only was no attempt made to suppress these books, but they cast considerable light on the New Testament background.
The Council Of Nicaea
- What Really Happened?
by James Garlow, Ph.D. , Senior Pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in La Mesa, California and by Peter Jones, Ph. D. , Executive Director, Christian Witness in a Pagan Planet
The Council of Nicaea figures prominently in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. Brown's character, Teabing, brings up the subject of the Nicaean Council while teaching Sophie about Jesus:
"Jesus' establishment as the 'Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea."
"Hold on. You're saying Jesus' divinity was the result of a vote?" "A relatively close vote at that," Teabing added (233).
Councils held to determine important doctrinal matters were not uncommon to the early Christians. We read in Acts 15 how the church leaders came together to decide how Gentiles were to be treated. Councils were important in order to maintain an orthodox faith and prevent the spread of false teaching.
Council of Nicaea Refuted False Teachings
One such false teaching was being spread by Arius in A.D. 318. Arius taught that Jesus was a created being, just like other humans, and not the "begotten Son of God." He was opposed by Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, who declared Arius a heretic in a local council in A.D. 321. So Arius moved to Palestine and continued his teaching there. If he had kept his ideas to his own followers, there would not have been cause to call a council. But Arius began sending letters to area churches promoting the idea of Jesus as a created being. The debate grew over the next few years, finally gaining the attention of the emperor, Constantine.
Constantine, who had consolidated his hold on the Roman Empire, sought unity in all regions. He knew that a division within the Christian church would be one more destabilizing force in the empire, so he moved to restore peace. Constantine called together more than 300 bishops from around the empire, primarily from the east. (This would have favored Arius's cause, as that is where his influence was the greatest.) Bishops traveled thousands of miles to attend the conference held in Constantinople. Many came bearing wounds and scars from the torture they had endured for their faith.
The Arians submitted their statement of doctrine that flatly denied the divinity of Christ. It was soundly rejected. The bishops, led by Athanasius, considered what was taught by the original church in the writings of the New Testament. These men wrote up an alternative creed, which became the Nicene Creed. In it Jesus was affirmed to be divine, the historic position of the church for the previous three hundred years.
There are many confirmations of this fact. Here is what several of these leaders wrote, all long before the council of Nicaea. (years approximate):
Ignatius: "God Himself was manifested in human form" (A.D. 105).
Clement: "It is fitting that you should think of Jesus Christ as of God" (A.D. 150).
Justin Martyr: "The Father of the universe has a Son. And He...is even God" (A.D. 160).
Irenaeus: "He is God, for the name Emmanuel indicates this" (A.D. 180).
Tertullian: "...Christ our God" (A.D. 200).
Origen: "No one should be offended that the Savior is also God..." (A.D. 225).
Novation: "...He is not only man, but God also..." (A.D. 235).
Cyprian: "Jesus Christ, our Lord and God" (A.D. 250).
Methodius: "...He truly was and is...with God, and being God..." (A.D.290).
Lactantius: "We believe Him to be God" (A.D. 304).
Arnobius: "Christ performed all those miracles...the...duty of Divinity" (A.D. 305).
This shows the leaders of the church have always considered Jesus divine.
The Council of Nicaea - Not a close vote
The newly written Niceaean creed was adopted by a landslide vote. Only two voted against. That can hardly be called close. The church had suffered for three centuries under the tyranny of the Roman Empire. The Council of Nicaea came only fourteen years after the final persecution of Christians at the hand of the Emperor Galerius. The bishops of the church would never have compromised what had cast their fellow Christians so much. They would have rather suffered another three centuries of oppression and persecution than deny their Lord.
Can you begin to endorse the historic view that the Bible is an authentic text? Are you open to considering that the message of the Bible, as well as its form, have the marks of divine authorship? Would you like to trust this book, and its primary author, as millions have over the centuries?
If a man has not read a news paper today, then that man is uninformed. If a man has read a news paper today, then that man is misinformed.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks