Is the bible reliable?

[Vaccine]

This topic has come up in a few posts so I dug out one of my favorite books "Evidence that Demands A Verdict" by McDowell. The reliability of the new testament has been criticized, so instead of just having one critical thought and leaving it at that, I think we should follow it through.

Apart from the bible, the oldest tangible evidence of Christianity is from two ossuaries (receptacles for bones) dated 50 AD. Along with 4 crosses, Eleazar L. Sukenik found inscriptions that read "Iesous iou" and "Iesous aloth". The first perhaps being a prayer to Jesus for help the other being a prayer to Jesus for resurrection.

This has been posted before but it bears repeating, there are 24,970 manuscripts of the New Testament available. The New Testament was written between 50-100 AD.

"Following the custom of the synagogue, according to which portions of the Law and Prophets were read at divine service each Sabbath day, the Christian Church adopted the practice of reading passages from the New Testament books at service of worship. A regular system of lessons from the Gospels and Epistles was developed, and the custom arose of arranging these according to fixed order of Sundays and other holy days of the Christian year" -Bruce Metzger.
2135 of these Lectionaries have been cataloged, they contain all of the NT many times over with the exception of Revelation and parts of Acts. These Lectionaries are a valuable source to any textual criticism against the NT.

"And on the day called Sunday there is a gathering together to one place of all those who live in cities or in the country, and the memoirs of the apostiles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits." Justin Martyr 100-165 AD

Among the dead sea scrolls are a few scrolls that contain incomplete fragments (or appear to be quoting) Mark, Romans, 1 Timothy, 2 Peter, James, and Acts. The reason this is important is because the caves stopped being used ~70 AD after the temple was destroyed. That means much of the New Testament was in circulation long before the Nicaea council in 325 AD. It also means we can be very confident there wasn't any altering, modifying, or editing of any kind going on in 325 AD. All they did was assemble the writings, leaving a few out, into what we know as the New Testament. We can consider the New Testament to be a reliable witness of the events of Jesus and the Apostles lives.
The Apocrypha is for another thread but I will just list the reasons why some were left out according to the New Unger's Bible Dictionary.
1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and anachronisms.
2. They teach doctrines that are false and foster practices that are at variance with inspired scripture.
3.They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of subject matter and styling out of keeping with inspired scripture.
4. They lack distinctive elements that give genuine Scripture its divine character, such as prophetic power and poetic and religious feeling.

"As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another and have studied the alleged contradictions between the biblical record and the evidence of linguistics, archaeology, or science, my confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture has been repeatedly verified and strengthened" -Dr. Gleason Archer

 

[ventura23]

This topic has come up in a few posts so I dug out one of my favorite books "Evidence that Demands A Verdict" by McDowell. The reliability of the new testament has been criticized, so instead of just having one critical thought and leaving it at that, I think we should follow it through.

Apart from the bible, the oldest tangible evidence of Christianity is from two ossuaries (receptacles for bones) dated 50 AD. Along with 4 crosses, Eleazar L. Sukenik found inscriptions that read "Iesous iou" and "Iesous aloth". The first perhaps being a prayer to Jesus for help the other being a prayer to Jesus for resurrection.

This has been posted before but it bears repeating, there are 24,970 manuscripts of the New Testament available. The New Testament was written between 50-100 AD.

"Following the custom of the synagogue, according to which portions of the Law and Prophets were read at divine service each Sabbath day, the Christian Church adopted the practice of reading passages from the New Testament books at service of worship. A regular system of lessons from the Gospels and Epistles was developed, and the custom arose of arranging these according to fixed order of Sundays and other holy days of the Christian year" -Bruce Metzger.
2135 of these Lectionaries have been cataloged, they contain all of the NT many times over with the exception of Revelation and parts of Acts. These Lectionaries are a valuable source to any textual criticism against the NT.

"And on the day called Sunday there is a gathering together to one place of all those who live in cities or in the country, and the memoirs of the apostiles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits." Justin Martyr 100-165 AD

Among the dead sea scrolls are a few scrolls that contain incomplete fragments (or appear to be quoting) Mark, Romans, 1 Timothy, 2 Peter, James, and Acts. The reason this is important is because the caves stopped being used ~70 AD after the temple was destroyed. That means much of the New Testament was in circulation long before the Nicaea council in 325 AD. It also means we can be very confident there wasn't any altering, modifying, or editing of any kind going on in 325 AD. All they did was assemble the writings, leaving a few out, into what we know as the New Testament. We can consider the New Testament to be a reliable witness of the events of Jesus and the Apostles lives.
The Apocrypha is for another thread but I will just list the reasons why some were left out according to the New Unger's Bible Dictionary.
1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and anachronisms.
2. They teach doctrines that are false and foster practices that are at variance with inspired scripture.
3.They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of subject matter and styling out of keeping with inspired scripture.
4. They lack distinctive elements that give genuine Scripture its divine character, such as prophetic power and poetic and religious feeling.

"As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another and have studied the alleged contradictions between the biblical record and the evidence of linguistics, archaeology, or science, my confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture has been repeatedly verified and strengthened" -Dr. Gleason Archer

The question is are we reading scripture reliably?

 

[Danacovert82]

I say the bible is reliable. Why wouldn't it be?

 

[Danacovert82]

If the bible weren't reliable then it wouldn't have been written.

 

[ventura23]

If the bible weren't reliable then it wouldn't have been written.

↑
I say the bible is reliable. Why wouldn't it be?
Click to expand...


The bible tells us that we must get understanding and many Christians just read the words, but without spiritual understanding so It is not scripture, but, man that is erring.
The Holy Spirit gives us understanding, not just from the intellect

 

[jasoncran]

any person can be wrong with their views that happens. it has happened with me.

 

[Navigator]

The New Testament, given its age is one of the most, if not THE most reliable documents out there.

 

[Tristan]

I've come across this question from nonbelievers before. Here's my main source

There are about 5600 Greek copies of the New Testament manuscripts in existence. The accuracy of these is 99.5%...which leaves a little room for typographical errors and such. To put this in context, we have:

7 manuscripts of Plato
10 manuscripts of Julius Caesar
49 manuscripts of Aristotle
643 manuscripts of Homer's Illiad. (and they are only 95% reliable).

Oh, I didn't mention that alongside the 5600 Greek texts, we have about 19000 written in local languages from around the same time period.

To dismiss the validity of scriptural texts is to dismiss the validity of the writings of many ancient authors.

I don't believe the Bible is true because the Church says it or the Bible itself says it. There's plenty of other evidence that it's a reliable text without needing to resort to faith. Sorry nonbelievers, you're without excuse!

 

[Vaccine]

Good stuff Tristan!
People who question it's reliability are without excuse.

The reason behind this thread is every now and then some book or group comes along and tries to say Jesus we learn about from history and from the bible are different. The Jesus seminar actually voting, based on their opinions, what verses Jesus actually said and ones attributed to him later. Or subtle attempts to undermine Christianity like the Davinci code or blatant ones like the book "Zealot". There are many documents from all different locations and cultures that line up to refute those ideas. It's possible people don't reliably read the bible, but the book, the actual texts themselves, can stand up to any scrutiny.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Good stuff indeed!
Praise the Lord!
Amen!

 

[Danacovert82]

IMO: we shouldn't always try to question its reliability. I say take it or leave it.

 

[ventura23]

[quote="Danacovert82

All you people have is history, not the Holy Spirit.
No insight, no revelations.
You call this Christianity?
You are missing what Christianity is all about.

 

[Danacovert82]

No, I am not. I know we need to know what all the books are about in depth, but why make it anymore complicated than it already is?

 

[ventura23]

No, I am not. I know we need to know what all the books are about in depth, but why make it anymore complicated than it already is?

You are making it complicated. Christ is in the here and now, He lives inside us all we need to do is be quiet and listen.
Scripture says "be still and know God". You people have no understanding and make it so complicated.

 

[Asyncritus]

I personally disagree profoundly with the ideas that the gospels in particular were written after AD goodness-knows-what.

That date is put about by people who cannot believe that Jesus actually spoke the Olivet Pophecy, with its very fine detailed prophecy about the Fall of Jerusalem, and therefore it had to be written after AD70.

My own theory is that they were written (apart from Luke, who was a few months later) in the 40 days after the resurrection.

What else do you think Jesus was doing in those 40 days? Just swanning round all over the place, despite the fact that He knew that these books were going to carry the gospel into the whole world? Wouldn't He have taken a deeply personal interest in what they wrote and said about Him? IMHO, He would, and did.

There is also a considerable amount of very finely detailed internal evidence that they were written by eyewitnesses, by people who actually saw what had happened, and spoke the truth, no matter what other people might think.

The critics, of course, know nothing about this kind of evidence, and care even less, just as long as they can keep pumping out their petty 'original' theories about this famous Q document which nobody has ever seen, or ever will.

 

[ventura23]

I personally disagree profoundly with the ideas that the gospels in particular were written after AD goodness-knows-what.

That date is put about by people who cannot believe that Jesus actually spoke the Olivet Pophecy, with its very fine detailed prophecy about the Fall of Jerusalem, and therefore it had to be written after AD70.

My own theory is that they were written (apart from Luke, who was a few months later) in the 40 days after the resurrection.

What else do you think Jesus was doing in those 40 days? Just swanning round all over the place, despite the fact that He knew that these books were going to carry the gospel into the whole world? Wouldn't He have taken a deeply personal interest in what they wrote and said about Him? IMHO, He would, and did.

There is also a considerable amount of very finely detailed internal evidence that they were written by eyewitnesses, by people who actually saw what had happened, and spoke the truth, no matter what other people might think.

The critics, of course, know nothing about this kind of evidence, and care even less, just as long as they can keep pumping out their petty 'original' theories about this famous Q document which nobody has ever seen, or ever will.

I could care less about the past, what matters is Knowing Christ in the now.

 

[Danacovert82]

You are making it complicated. Christ is in the here and now, He lives inside us all we need to do is be quiet and listen.
Scripture says "be still and know God". You people have no understanding and make it so complicated.

I didn't make this thread. I am only posting my opinion. That's all. I know to be quiet and listen to God.

 

[ventura23]

I didn't make this thread. I am only posting my opinion. That's all. I know to be quiet and listen to God.

Your opinion was wrong. Opinions don't come from experience, but, from thought.

 

[Free]

The question is are we reading scripture reliably?

That is a question but that is not what is being addressed in this topic. One can reliably read unreliable documents which will still make them wrong. As to the topic, it is regarding evidence for the reliability of the Bible, why we can believe it to be trustworthy in what it says.

 

[ventura23]

That is a question but that is not what is being addressed in this topic. One can reliably read unreliable documents which will still make them wrong. As to the topic, it is regarding evidence for the reliability of the Bible, why we can believe it to be trustworthy in what it says.

Why is their doubt in the first place? so much for the topic.