You have given me no reason to believe in a god. I already told you that the bible is an unreliable and unverifiable source by any scientific standard. No one has seen a god, no one can produce a god that everyone can see.
And as I said before, lack of a detailed explanation of events is not proof of a god.
In a few hundred years of serious study (much of that with unsophisticated scientific equipment), one cannot expect to explain in minute detail what happened over billions of years.
You're dismissing science before the work is even remotely finished.
Do you need a definition of empirical evidence ?
(ĕm-pîr'ĭ-kəl)
adj. 1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.
Read more:
empirical: Definition from Answers.com
The bible has provided many ;
hy·poth·e·sis/hīˈpäTHəsis/Noun
1. A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
2. A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth
And science later tested and observed the hypothesis and wow it became empirical evidence.
That bloody book has been supported by empirical evidence.
[youtube]Pk0K1zgCDtE[/youtube]
[youtube]8G4zyBmgaeA&feature[/youtube]
[youtube]gvPkHpE-oks&feature[/youtube]
Questions On The Bible's Origin And Preservation
Questions On The Bible's Origin And Preservation
Page 1
Question 1. I was reading some of the other questions and in an answer you stated that all of the prophets of the Bible spoke different languages. How did the Bible become compiled as one book and receive its name and who authorized its translation?
Previous Question Top
Next Question
Answer To answer the first question, the books of the Bible are said to be in the canon of the Bible. This simply means that over time, scholars have come to accept certain books as authentic, inspired books that contain the Word of God, while rejecting other books as uninspired.
There are several books that people have tried to move into the biblical canon that never made it. For example, the Gospel of Thomas claims to be an inspired book about the childhood of Jesus. However, when this book is compared with the four Gospels (the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), the Gospel of Thomas_ is clearly inferior.
The books that we have in the Old Testament today were accepted by the Jews as inspired before Jesus came to the earth. These scriptures were extremely important to the Jews (and us) even after the New Testament church was established. As the canon of the New Testament was established, the Bible came to include all of the books that we have in it today.
Establishing the canon of the Bible involves careful comparisons of text that we know were written by inspired men (the letters of Paul, the Gospel of Luke as well as the book of Acts, both written by Luke who accompanied Paul on his journeys) to text that may or may not have been written by inspired men.
For example, we do not know who wrote the book of Hebrews. However, we can compare the teachings of the book of Hebrews to other texts that we know were inspired (the writings of Paul, for example). If, like the _Gospel of Thomas_, Hebrews were not able to withstand this kind of scrutiny, it would not be included in the canon.
To answer the 2nd part of your question, the oldest copies of the Old Testament that we have were written in Aramaic and Hebrew. Before Christ was born, the Greeks translated the Old Testament into the Greek language. That translation is called the Septuagint.
Several translations of the Old Testament that we use today were translated from copies of the Aramaic and Hebrew versions of the Old Testament and the Septuagint. The Dead Sea Scrolls, copies of portions of the Old Testament which were written hundreds of years before Christ was born, validate the Old Testament translations that we use today because they (our current versions) are virtually identical to the text contained in the Scrolls.
The New Testament has a similar history. There are many copies of the New Testament that date to the 4th century AD and earlier. Although we have no original manuscripts of the New Testament writings, the early Christians were careful to maintain copies of the letters that were written by the inspired men of God. Like the Old Testament, the New Testament canon includes only the books that have withstood all challenges to their authenticity and inspiration.
The Bible has been translated into English from the original Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek several times in the last several hundred years. Some translations are more accurate than others. If you would like information on the benefits and problems with different translations available today, please let me know.
If you want to pursue this question further, try to find a copy of _You Can Trust Your Bible_ by Neale Pryor. Pryor deals with many of these subjects much better than I can. Contact Michael
Question 2. The early bibles ended Mark at 16:8. Where did verses 9 through 20 come from?
Previous Question Top
Next Question
Answer Thanks for your question on Mark 16. Below I have included a rather lengthy discussion from someone who has done considerable research on your question. In general, 2 manuscripts used for some of our translations do omit part of Mark 16. However, there is no doubt that it should be included in the text. The majority of scholars do not question that it should be there, and that it is part of the rest of Mark's gospel. If you have a specific question regarding those verses or any other passage please reply.
There are two Greek manuscripts that were written around 350 AD which do not contain the last twelve verses of the gospel of Mark. It is interesting that these same two manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) also do not contain the 1,000 year reign of Christ in Revelation 20:1-6. None of these modern preachers claim this passage doesn't belong in theBible!
The end of the gospel of John is not found in the Vaticanus and Sinaitic manuscripts either, where John wrote, "And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen" (John 21:25). Although this ending of John's gospel is missing in the same manuscripts that do not contain the ending of Mark's gospel, there are no footnotes in the new Bibles casting doubts in people's minds on the ending of John! John 21:25 is accepted because it is found in all other Greek manuscripts, but so is Mark 16:9-20! We should ask, why do some "scholars" reject the end of Mark but retain the end of John when both are missing from the same manuscripts?
Both the Vaticanus and Sinaitic do not contain the confession of faith by the blind man who said, "Lord, I believe!" (John 9:38). Also, both of these manuscripts do not contain Luke 6:1, which reads, "Now it happened on the second Sabbath after the first that He went through th grainfields. And His disciples plucked the heads of grain and ate them, rubbing them in their hands."
The account in John 19:33-34 of the soldiers piercing the side of Jesus while He was on the cross is also omitted in both theVaticanus and Sinaitic manuscripts. Footnotes are not added in modern translations to warn us about any of these passages because all other Greek manuscripts docontain them.
Where is the consistency? All other Greek manuscripts also contain Mark 16:9-20! In the Sinaitic manuscript, the book of Hebrews ends at chapter 9 verse 8. According to this so called "reliable ancient manuscript", Hebrews 9:14 to 13:25 do not belong in the Bible either! The passage, "Then an angel appeared to Him from heaven, strengthening Him. And beingin agony, He prayed more earnestly. Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground" ( Luke 22:43-44) is not found in the Sinaitic. Neither is the passage, "Then Jesus said, 'Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.'" (Luke 23:34).
This is just a small sampling of the problems of these two manuscripts. The Greek Scholar Dean Burgon, writing of the Sinaitic and Vaticanus, along with the Codex Bezae, wrote that these three manuscripts, "are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant: exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with: have become... the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of truth which are discoverable in any known copies of the word of God." Dean Burgon, The Revision Revised, pg. 16.
There is an eighth or ninth century unical manuscript called Codex L that contains a different ending to Mark 16. This manuscript is interrupted at Mark 16:8 with the words, "something to this effect is met with," and then, instead of the Great Commission in Mark, the author wrote, "All that was commanded them they immediately rehearsed to Peter and the rest. And after these thing from East even unto West, did Jesus Himself send forth by their means the holy and incorruptible message of eternal salvation."
After examining this manuscript, Dean Burgon described the Codex L as, "the work of an ignorant foreign copyist who probably wrote with several manuscripts before him; but who is found to have been wholly incompetent to determine which reading to adopt and which to reject." Dean Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses Of Mark, pg. 203.
The last twelve verses of Mark are included in all of the more than 500 known manuscripts of the New Testament except two, the Vaticanus and Sinaitic, and is in all of the more than two thousand manuscript copies, without exception, yet, modern editors add footnotes in the Bible to cast doubt on the authenticity of this passage! If the last twelve verses of Mark were rejected based on the authority of these two manuscripts, the gospel of Mark would end with, "for they were afraid" (Mark 16:8). Does it seem reasonable to anyone that God would have intentionally ended a gospel of Jesus Christ with the disciples being afraid?
Although there are many arguments made concerning Mark 16:16, it is important to know that the early Christians quoted thispassage before the Sinaitic and Vaticanus manuscripts were written. In his work directed against the Gnostics, Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19 and even said it was at the end of the gospel of Mark! Remember, Irenaeus lived 120-205 AD, and the Vaticanus and Sinaitic manuscripts were not written until the fourth century! "Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: 'So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;' confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: 'The Lord saith to my Lord, sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool.'" Irenaeus, "Against Heresies," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 426.
The "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles" is a compilation of several works that may have been written as early as the first century. Some of the earlier writers credited the work to Clement, who was an acquaintance of the apostles Paul and Peter. Later writers claim the "Constitutions" were written sometime in the 200's AD. Whichever view one takes, there is an agreement that the "Constitutions" were being circulated at a very early time in the church. This book indicates that the Christians were already familiar with the last few verses of Mark, which some modern "scholars" claim were a later invention centuries later. Not only was the writer familiar with the last twelve verses, he quoted Mark 16:17-18! "With good reason did He say to all of us together, when we were perfected concerning those gifts which were given from Him by the Spirit: 'Now these signs shall follow them that have believed in my name: they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall by no means hurt them: they shall lay their hands on the sick, and they shall recover.'" "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, pg. 479.
The "Gospel of Nicodemus" is another early work whose authorship and date of writing are uncertain, although dates have been suggested as early as the late 100's AD. This work also indicates that the early Christians were familiar enough with the last twelve verses of Mark that they could quote Mark 16:15-19. "And Phinees a priest, and Adas a teacher, and Haggai a Levite, came down from Galilee to Jerusalem, and said to the rulers of the synagogue, and the priests and the Levites: 'We saw Jesus and his disciples sitting on themountain called Mamilch; and he said to his disciples, 'Go into all the world, and preach to every creature: he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be condemned. And these signs shall attend those who have believed: in my name they shall cast out demons, speak new tongues, take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall by no means hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall be well.' And while Jesus was speaking to his disciples, we saw him taken up to heaven.'" "The Gospel of Nicodemus," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 8, pg. 422.
The evidence proves that the early Christians were familiar with the last twelve verses of the gospel of Mark and considered these verses to be authentic. How did they view the statement of Jesus concerning baptism in Mark 16:16? The "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles" quoted this verse to prove that anyone who is not baptized is to be condemned as an unbeliever. This was written over a century before the Vaticanus and Sinaitic manuscripts! "He that, out of contempt, will not be baptized, shall be condemned as an unbeliever, and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says: 'Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven.' And again: 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned.'" "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, pg. 456-457. Contact Larry
Question 3. What is the origin, inspiration, and inerrancy of the Bible?
Also How our present English text came into being from Hebrew and Greek?
Previous Question Top
Next Question
Answer This is two questions. I will deal with them separately.
In this epistle, we will deal with the first question, but I rephrased it a little bit.
How can we be assured of the Authenticity of the Bible? How do we know that what we have is really the words of God?
You ask a very important question. Not because it is difficult to answer, but because it is so fundamental to our faith. If we are not firmly convinced of the authenticity of the Holy Scriptures, then our faith will be weak and our obedience will be incomplete.
And it is difficult to find material to answer the question, but it is hard to pick and choose from the wealth of material available.
In this study then, let's consider three principle sources of evidence that the Bible is the Divinely inspired Word of God:
1. The Testimony of Jesus Christ 2. Why Should We Believe Jesus Christ? 3. The Life Of Paul As An Evidence of the Resurrection
First let's look at:
THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST
Christ is the key to it all. And it is appropriate that we base our faith on Christ, because He is our ultimate authority in all things --
Matt 28:18-20 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (KJV)
As Jesus has all power (all authority), why should He not be our authority here?
We know that the Bible is authentic because He quoted from it. Remember when He kept saying "It is written ..." when He was tempted in the wilderness? It is that, and His many other references.
Consider that at the time of Jesus the Jews regarded what we call the Old Testament in three parts:
The "Law" --
Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy
The "Prophets" --
Joshua Judges I Samuel II Samuel I Kings II Kings Isaiah Jeremiah Ezekiel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi
The "Writings" --
Psalms Proverbs Job Song of Solomon Ruth Lamentations Ecclesiastes Esther Daniel Ezra Nehemiah I Chronicles II Chronicles
[An interesting detail here, the Saducees (they did not believe in the resurrection -- they were "sad you see") they only accepted the Law as authoritative. Notice how many times Jesus rubbed their nose in it as He referred to the Law and the Prophets as authoritative!]
Anyhow, the point is that the Divine Son of God quoted from and referred to the Old Testament scriptures in His teaching, and He considered them authentic.
Consider here -- Some Old Testament References by Our Lord
Get out your Bible and check these out. See if Jesus did not refer to these passages as if everybody knows that they are authentic.
The Law
Matt 4:4 Man shall not live by Bread Alone Deut. 8:3
Matt 4:7 Thou shalt Not Tempt God Deut. 6:16
Matt 4:10 Worship God Deut. 10:20
Matt. 5:27 On Adultery Ex. 20:14
Matt. 5:33 Thou shalt Not Swear Num. 30:2
Matt. 5:38 An Eye for an Eye Lev. 24:19-20
Luke 11:51 Abel Gen. 4
Luke 17:26-29 Noah, Lot & Sodom Gen. 7 & 19
The Prophets
Matt. 12:3 Hungry David I Sam. 21:6
Matt. 12:7 Mercy vs. Sacrifice Hos. 6:6
Matt. 12:38-40 Sign of Jonah Jonah 1:17
Luke 19:46 Den of Thieves Isa. 56:7 & Jer. 7:11
Matt. 13:13-14 Hearing not Hear Isa. 6:9-10
The Writings
Matt. 22:41-45 David's Lord Psa. 110:1
Mark 12:10 Chief Cornerstone Psa. 118:22
Luke 11:51 Zechariah II Chronicles 24:20-21
The Law and the Prophets
Matt 5:17 Jesus Came to Fulfill the Law & Prophets
Matt. 7:12 Golden Rule -- this is the Law & Prophets
Matt 22:40 On the Two Greatest Commandments hang the Law & Prophets
Luke 16:16 Law & Prophets Were Until John
Luke 24:44 Christ Fulfilled all the Law & Prophets
Did you look at these? [Remember that chapter and verse divisions did not exist in the first century. They did not come along until the 14th century or so.]
Next let's look at
WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE JESUS CHRIST?
Everyone believes that Jesus Christ was a good person. No one back then could convict Him of sin, try as they did. The only thing resembling sin which they could pin on Him was His claim to be Deity. Blasphemy is an extremely serious sin. But, since He was (is) Deity, then it cannot be sinful for Him to claim it!
Jesus claimed to be Deity. Now if He was not Deity, then He lied. If He is a liar (and lying about claiming to be Deity would be a large size lie), then He could not be a "good person." Which all are in agreement that He was!
What evidence do we have to support our belief in the words of Jesus Christ? Many. Let's look at just a few.
Fulfilled Prophecy
There are more than 300 prophecies fulfilled in the life of Christ. Micah 5:2 spoke of Bethlehem. Matthew 2:5 referred back to this prophecy of Micah. And the Jews at that time (see context of Matt. 2:5) understood the passage to be a prophecy of where the Messiah was to be born!
The study of the fulfillment of prophecy in the life of Christ is a very rewarding study. I will leave it to you.
The End He Proposed
The Jews were looking for a Messiah to deliver them. They had seen the many prophecies and other references in the Old Testament. But they were looking for an earthly kingdom. Jesus was that Messiah. It would have been so easy for Him to accept the crown as king on earth. Because that was what the people wanted.
But He did not do it that way. He chose the way of perishing to accomplish His mission. He gave His life freely. Look at the accounts of His crucifixion, and it is striking how He so willingly gave His life, without resisting.
There is no way that He could gain anything by His death. Unless, of course, His death was Divinely appointed by His Divine Father!
The Testimony of His Father
The Hebrew writer, in warning us to not miss the boat, mentions that God provided signs and wonders (miracles) so that we would believe that Jesus Christ is Divine.
Heb 2:1-4 1 Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. 2 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; 3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; 4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? (KJV)
See also:
John 20:30-31 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (KJV)
No body could disprove His miracles, then or now. From turning water to wine in John chapter two to raising dead, stinking Lazarus from the dead in John chapter eleven. There were just too many witnesses for Jesus' miracles to be a fraud. The only other possibility, then, is that Jesus Christ is Divine.
The greatest of Jesus' miracles, He did not even do Himself, but God did for Him. That is His resurrection from the dead.
No one could disprove it back then. And they had the most powerful reason to disprove it if at all possible. He was cramping the style of the local leaders, and making their life difficult. But they could not disprove it.
Some today try to disprove the resurrection. Long distance (time). I have not read all their arguments, but that seems silly. If the Jewish leaders could not disprove it back then, when they had the most reason to, how does anyone today expect to be able to disprove it when any evidence and eyewitness accounts are long gone?
But we do have eyewitness accounts and evidence in the Holy Scriptures which substantiates the fact that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead.
The Changed Apostles and other Christians
One of the greatest testimonies to the truth of the resurrection is the change in the life of the apostles. They were hicks from the sticks, and yet they turned the world upside down with their teaching and testimony. And for what earthly reason? None whatsoever. What was the effect on their lives?
They lost everything, they lived in poverty, they died horrible deaths in torture (all except John, who died a natural death). And why would they do all that, if it was not for the fact that they could see a greater, eternal reward. They had seen the resurrected Christ, and He changed their lives.
As He promised them in John chapters 14 through 16, He send the Holy Spirit to teach them all things. Right after Christ was crucified, they were scattered and confused. But shortly after the church was established on the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter two, they got their act together and "turned the world upside down" with their teaching about the risen Christ.
How could all this have happened at all if it were not for the fact that Christ was (is) Deity, and He was actually raised from the dead?
There are more arguments along these lines; and I am sure that the above argument could be presented in a more convincing manner, but I trust that you get the idea.
Finally let's look at:
THE LIFE OF PAUL AS AN EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION
[Before we get into the meat of the following argument, be sure you are familiar with the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, as recorded in Acts chapter nine, and also as he retold it in Acts chapters 23 and 26.]
This is Lesson 27 from Homer Hailey's Internal Evidences of Christianity, copyright 1964 (so don't sell any of this).
----- Start of Homer Hailey's Material -----
Proof From The Conversion Of Saul
This is an outline of the argument made by Lord George Lyttelton, which first appeared about 1747. Lyttelton and his friend, Gilbert West, were "Fully persuaded that the Bible was an imposter and determined to expose the cheat. Lord Lyttelton chose the conversion of Paul and Mr. West the Resurrection of Christ for the subject of hostile criticism ... the result of their separate attempts was, that they were both converted by their efforts to overthrow the truth of Christianity." (The Fundamentals, vol. V, p. 107, Reprinted in Evidence Quarterly, I:2, p. 9.)
Lyttelton lays down four propositions which he considers exhaust all the possibilities in the case:
1. Either Paul was "an imposter who said what he knew to be false, with an intent to deceive;" or
2. He was an enthusiast who imposed on himself by the force of "an overheated imagination;" or
3. He was "deceived by the fraud of others;" or finally
4. What he declared to be the cause of his conversion did all really happen; "and, therefore, the Christian religion is a divine revelation."
I. Paul Was Not An Imposter
Men act from motive and there could have been no motive for imposture:
1. Wealth could not have been the motive; wealth was on the side of those forsaken, poverty on the side espoused. Even though poor and in want, he refused to accept help when such would hinder the gospel, I Cor. 4:11-13; 2 Cor. 12:14; Acts 20:33-34. The closing picture of his life is that of an old man in a Roman prison, asking that a cloak be sent him to protect him from the cold, 2 Tim. 4:13.
2. Reputation was not the motive, for reputation lay on the side of the Pharisees, universal contempt on the side chosen, 1 Cor 1:26-29; 4:11-13.
3. Power did not motivate him; that is the desire for power. He had no eye for worldly ambition when he became a Christian. He addresses his inferiors as "co-laborers," "fellow-workers;" he neither lorded it over individuals, nor over the churches he established. Paul preached Christ as head, hid himself behind the cross, and rebuked sin of all kinds in the churches, without fear or favor, but never with an air of superiority, Philemon 23-24; 1 Cor 1:13-17; 2 Cor. 4:5.
4. The gratification of fleshly passion could not have been the motive. Some may claim revelations in order to indulge in loose conduct, but Paul preached the highest standard of morals, and condemned all departures from such a standard, Eph. 4:17-5:33; Col 3:5-17; Gal. 5:19-25.
5. Was it simply a pious fraud? Did Paul pretend conversion simply to spread Christianity? Answer: We are back to where we started, What was the motive? Men have some motive in what they do, what was Paul's? Where did he get his knowledge? How account for his success?
II. Paul Was Not An Enthusiast Who Imposed On Himself
1. Definition of enthusiast: "A religious madman; a fanatic. One whose mind is wholly possessed and heated by what engages it ... A fervent and imaginative person." Webster.
2. Elements of an Enthusiast:
a. Great heat of temper. Thought Paul was fervent, he was always governed by reason and discretion. Before all, his effort was to reach men with the gospel, Acts 24:24-27; 26:2-29. He had one aim only, Phil 3:13-14.
b. Melancholy. This is a mark of misguided zeal, but it is never found in Paul; he is always rejoicing, never brooding, Col. 1:24; Phil 4:4-7, etc.
c. Paul was not swept away as an enthusiast, for such men always see what they are looking for; he was looking for anything else. he was persecuting Christ, not looking for Him.
III. Paul Was Not Deceived By Others
1. Nor was he deceived by others, for such was a moral impossibility. While Paul was bitter against the disciples they could never have attempted such a feat as deceiving him in such a way -- a moral impossibility.
2. It was physically impossible for them to have produced the light and the voice with which to deceive him.
3. Therefore, Paul saw Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus, Christ Raised >From The Dead.
IV. Testimony Of Paul To The Resurrection (supplementary to the above by Candler)
1. Universal belief in the resurrection;
a. Paul's unquestioned epistles: Romans, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians.
b. Claims in them: Romans 1:4; Gal. 1:1; 1 Cor 15:14-15.
c. Also, the resurrection was a matter of faith in those churches addressed, even the one Paul had not visited, i.e. Rome.
d. Paul met his opponents by an appeal to having seen Jesus, 1 Cor. 9:1. This establishes the fact that his opponents believed in the resurrection and that Paul's having seen Jesus was requisite to apostleship.
2. Three theories by which to account for this universal belief:
a. An intended fraud by the apostles.
b. The apostles were deceived.
c. Jesus was raised from the dead.
3. A consideration of these:
a. The early disciples lacked motive and ability for a fraud so stupendous and successful. If Christ were not raised, we have here a wonderful effect without an adequate cause.
b. "These men lacked the mental conditions required for such an hallucination as the 'vision theory' attributed to the early followers of Jesus. One of the three mental conditions must exist before the mind can yield itself to an hallucination, viz., prepossession, a fixed idea, or a state of expectancy." (Candler, Christus Auctor, p. 86.)
"Again, why should the same form of hallucination have possessed the minds of so many and so different persons at the same time?" (Ibid, p. 87.)
"Furthermore, if the appearances of Jesus were mere visions, why did they cease within a very limited time after the crucifixion -- say forty days? What cured the visionaries of their hallucinations all at once? Why were they all cured simultaneously? Why did not the distemper last them longer?" (Ibid. p. 88)
Conclusion:
There is only one logical answer: Jesus Christ was raised from the dead; He is the Son of God; and The Bible is a Special Divine Revelation. The evidence sustains the proposition with which the study began. It is more rational to believe than to disbelieve.
----- End of Homer Hailey's Material -----
I am going to still see if I can get some answers to your other questions.
But I wanted to get this on out without further delay.
And I apologize for it taking so long already. Contacts David
Question 4. Hello! Please give me the # of writers, countries they were from, and the period of time it took to write (the Bible). Thank you.
Previous Question Top
Next Question
Answer Here is some material, which I think might help:
Evidences: Documentation Of The Bible
There are many today who are under the impression that the Bibles we have today are not true to the original documents. Moreover, there are some who still think that the various books of the Bible were not written when the books themselves claim to have been written. Some folks think that the Gospels, for instance, were not eyewitness accounts as they claim to be, but are rather mythical accounts written much later in order to establish the Christians' doctrine. In pursuing this type of question, we are not trying to establish whether the Bible is inspired, but whether it is authentic: whether the text is true to the original, and whether the original books were written when they claim to have been. In this article, we will look at some of the evidence, which can help us to answer this type of question.
In order to understand the evidence for the Bible, it is necessary to have a little background. First, we know that the Bible is a collection of books written over a span of some centuries by approximately 40 different authors. These books are divided into two main sections, which we call the Old and New Testaments. There is a span of hundreds of years between the writing of the last Old Testament book, and the first New Testament book. The scholars who study the questions surrounding the Bible's authenticity apply to it the very same tests they apply to all ancient documents (although they tend to apply them a little more rigorously to a book which claims to be inspired by God.) These tests cover a variety of subjects, including both internal and external evidence. Internal evidence is what can be determined by looking within the pages of the books themselves: we have looked at some of this in past issues. [For examples of internal evidence, see these issues of PTW: October '95, Nov. '95, Feb. '96, Mar. '96, Apr. '96, Jun. '96, Aug. '96, and Sep. '96.] External evidence includes archaeological and scientific evidence, [For examples of scientific and archaeological evidence, see the Jan. '96, May '96, and Jul. '96 issues.] historical and cultural evidence, [For an example of historical/cultural evidence, see the Dec. '95 issue.] and manuscript evidence. A manuscript is a document written by hand. For our current purposes, a manuscript is a document written before the advent of the printing press (ca. 1450 AD). Because of the circumstances of the writing of the Bible, the study of the manuscript evidence is generally divided into two separate areas, one for each Testament. In the interest of space, we will look at some of the evidence for the New Testament only.
First, it is interesting to note that the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament still in existence date much closer to the time of authorship than is the case with other ancient books. The earliest manuscripts of Herodotus' writings, for example, date approximately 1300 years after his death; and this is not unusual in ancient books. By contrast, there is a fragment of the Gospel of John in the John Rylands University Library in Manchester, England, which is dated ca. 125 AD. Since scholars generally agree that John wrote his Gospel at a later date (between 60-90 AD) than the other three Gospel writers, this fragment is especially significant. Moreover, there is a fragment of the Gospel of Matthew found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating from before 68 AD: less than 35 years after Jesus' death! In addition to these, there are manuscripts containing the Gospel of John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and most of the Epistles of Paul, dated ca. 200 AD. There are manuscripts of all four Gospels, as well as other New Testament books, from the 200's AD. And in the British Library's manuscript room is the manuscript called Sinaiticus, which is dated ca. 350 AD, and which contains the entire New Testament. In short, the manuscript evidence points to the conclusion that the New Testament was written when it claims to have been written: between ca. 50 - 100 AD.
But the dates of the various manuscripts are not the only important factor. The sheer quantity of them is nothing short of impressive. The earliest New Testament manuscripts were written on papyrus, which is relatively fragile and subject to decay, not unlike paper. If you have seen a newspaper clipping from as recently as the 1960's, you will see it shows signs of deterioration after only 30 years. With this in mind, it is a wonder that any of the early papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament have survived a span of 1500 years or more. In fact, there are over 80 such manuscripts. And these are only the beginning. In the fourth century AD, parchment replaced papyrus as the primary medium for copies of the Bible. There are nearly 3000 parchment manuscripts of the Greek New Testament dating from the fourth century through the fifteenth century, when the printing press took over. By contrast, we only have one manuscript copy of the Annals of Tacitus, who lived ca. 55 - 120 AD: the very same era as the New Testament writings.
So far in our discussion, we have looked only at the manuscripts of the New Testament in Greek, which is the language in which it was originally written. In addition to the Greek, there are also a large quantity of manuscripts which are versions, or translations into other languages. The mere fact that the New Testament was translated at all is impressive when one considers that it was very unusual to translate a book in ancient times. And the New Testament was not translated only once, nor was it long after the writing that translations began to appear. The Bible was translated independently into both Latin and Syriac somewhere between 100 - 150 AD. It was translated into Coptic (an Egyptian dialect) in the 200's, Armenian and Gothic in the 300's, Georgian in the 400's, etc. In all, there are over 5000 manuscripts of the New Testament still in existence. With such a huge number of manuscripts, it is inevitable that variations would arise among them. The question which remains, then, is the extent and significance of these variations. In order to answer this question, we will first consider some more facts regarding the versions.
Each of the translations, of course, began a new tradition. For example, when making copies of the Bible in Armenian, the copyist would not generally have access to the Greek manuscript from which the original translation was made. So, he would have to copy directly from the Armenian translation itself. And likewise in making later revisions of the translation: the revisers would have to go by the existing Armenian, along with whatever Greek editions they had available to them; but they would not have access to the manuscript from which the translation was originally made. And this is so with each of the languages into which the Bible was translated. Thus, when looking at the accompanying chart, keep in mind that each of the vertical lines represents a separate line of transmittal. In determining the accuracy of the text, then, the modern scholars can compare copies of the New Testament in a number of different languages, representing different cultures and different religious points of view.
When we consider the great differences between the various cultures represented by the ancient translations, and the large number of variant doctrines existing in the religions of those cultures, we would expect there to be tremendous differences in the Biblical texts. But that is not the case. On the contrary, even with the enormous number of manuscripts, and the diversity of languages, approximately 85% of the New Testament text is not even questioned: in other words, there is no disagreement between the manuscripts for this portion of the text. As to the 15% for which variant readings exist among the manuscripts, most of the variant readings are easily recognized as false, simply because of the overwhelming manuscript evidence against them. As for the tiny portion that remains, most of the variant readings which are not easily dismissed as unauthentic, are so insignificant that they do not substantially change the meaning of the passages in which they occur. [International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, G.W. Bromily, general editor. Copyright 1988 Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.; vol. IV, p. 818] In fact, the renowned Bible scholar F.J.A. Hort estimates that the "substantial" variations (those which affect the meaning of the passage) affect only about one one-thousandth of the text. [The Gospel Argument For God, by Kenneth L. Chumbley. Copyright 1989. Page 26] And, even in those few instances wherein the sense of the passage is affected by the variant reading, the actual teaching of scripture remains unchallenged.
In conclusion, we may note that the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is truly overwhelming. If we approach the subject objectively, we must admit that all of the manuscript evidence points to the genuineness and authenticity of the books. They were written when they claim to have been written, and by whom they claim to have been written. Moreover, the text we have today is true to the original documents. Any claim, then, that "the Bible has been changed", or that "the Gospels were written generations after the fact", is demonstrably false. Consequently, any argument or doctrine built upon such a claim necessarily falls apart. Whenever we pick up a literal translation of the Bible, we have in our hands a substantially accurate rendition of some authentic - and very important - ancient documents.
Jim Robson
The following material was taken from individual prefaces to each book in the Open Bible by Thomas Nelson publishers, and from my own personal study. If you do a lot of study on the individual books, you may come to some different conclusions than I have below. But this is a good start.
Book
Author
Place of Writing
Time
Genesis Moses Egypt 1400 BC
Exodus Moses Egypt 1400 BC
Leviticus Moses Egypt 1400 BC
Numbers Moses Egypt 1400 BC
Deuteronomy Moses Egypt 1400 BC
Joshua Joshua Canaan 1405 -1390 BC
Judges Samuel (?) Palestine 1043 -1004 BC
Ruth Samuel (?) Palestine 1043 -1004 BC
I Samuel Samuel (?) Israel 1015 BC
II Samuel Nathan & Gad (?) Israel 931 BC
I Kings Jeremiah (?) Israel 646 - 570 BC
II Kings Jeremiah (?) Israel 586 BC
I Chronicles Ezra (?) Judah 450-430 BC
II Chronicles Ezra (?) Judah 450-430 BC
Ezra Ezra Judah 457 BC
Nehemiah Nehemiah Judah 444-425 BC
Esther Mordecai (?) Persia 483-473 BC
Job Unknown Uz 2000 BC
Psalms David & others Judah 1410-430 BC
Proverbs Solomon & others Judah 950-700 BC
Ecclesiastes Solomon Jerusalem 935 BC
Song of Solomon Solomon Jerusalem 965 BC
Isaiah Isaiah Israel/Judah 740-680 BC
Jeremiah Jeremiah Judah/Babylon 627-580 BC
Lamentations Jeremiah Jerusalem 586 BC
Ezekiel Ezekiel Babylon 592-570 BC
Daniel Daniel Babylon 605-536 BC
Hosea Hosea Israel 755-710 BC
Joel Joel Judah 835 BC
Amos Amos Israel 760-753 BC
Obadiah Obadiah Israel 840 BC
Jonah Jonah Nineveh? 760 BC
Micah Micah Judah 735-710 BC
Nahum Nahum Judah 660 BC
Habakkuk Habakkuk Judah 607 BC
Zephaniah Zephaniah Judah 630 BC
Haggai Haggai Jerusalem 520 BC
Zechariah Zechariah Jerusalem 520-470 BC
Malachi Malachi Jerusalem 432-425 BC
Matthew Matthew Syria or Palestine 58-68 AD
Mark Mark Rome 55-65 AD
Luke Luke Rome or Greece 60-68 AD
John John Ephesus 89-90 AD
Acts Luke Rome or Greece 62 AD
Romans Paul Corinth 56-57 AD
I Corinthians Paul Ephesus 56 AD
II Corinthians Paul Macedonia 56 AD
Galatians Paul Syrian Antioch 49 AD
Ephesians Paul Rome 60 AD
Philippians Paul Rome 62 AD
Colosians Paul Rome 61 AD
I Thessalonians Paul Corinth 51 AD
II Thessalonians Paul Corinth 51 AD
I Timothy Paul Macedonia 62-63 AD
II Timothy Paul Rome 67 AD
Titus Paul Corinth 63 AD
Philemon Paul Rome 60-61 AD
Hebrews Maybe Paul Unknown 64-68 AD
James James Jerusalem 46-49 AD
I Peter Peter Rome or Babylon 63-64 AD
II Peter Peter Rome 64-66 AD
I John John Ephesus 85-90 AD
II John John Ephesus 85-90 AD
III John John Ephesus 85-90 AD
Jude Jude Unknown 66-80 AD
Revelation John Patmos or Ephesus
