Post Reply
Page 1 of 14  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 14 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The BIBLE: Reliability and Historical Accuracy
3 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 3:26PM #1
Rgurley4
Posts: 8,952

The BIBLE: Reliability and Historical Accuracy


RELIABILITY of the 4 Gospels and "Dr." Luke's investigations in at least Acts 1-12:


John 14:26...Jesus to his followers: the Upper Room Discourse


"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name,
will teach you ALL things and will remind you of EVERYTHING  I have said to you." (and DID!)


I believe that:


1. Jesus the Christ is NOT just a mythical creation of the early "Church"
    ....But rather a God-Man appearing at a perfect time and place in history for a miraculous Incarnation.


2. Internal and external evidence contained in reliable ancient documents
    supports the historical reliability of the gospel accounts about Jesus of Nazareth.


3. Most importantly, these 4 harmonious Gospels and other documents show hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus the God-Man and His post-resurrection appearances and deeds.


4. The resurrection of Jesus, True God, True Man in turn, authenticates Jesus’ and others claims of Divinity of the Christ, the Messiah, Son of God, Son of Man, LORD.


5. Because Jesus is a spiritual PERSON of the TRI-UNE GOD, His testimony concerning the Scriptures is TRUE.


6. Jesus words and ministry bore witness to the complete spiritual authority of the "Word of God".


7. Conclusion: the historical reliability of the New Testament affirms the resurrection of Jesus the Christ, and the resurrected and ascended Jesus the Christ affirms the Divine Authority of the Scriptures / Our Bible!


Extracts and editing from: bible.org/seriespage/reliability-bible


www.godandscience.org/apologetics/authen... ....a compendium on conservative scholarly views


www.leestrobel.com/....apologetics of conservative Christ-followers


biblesanity.org/reliability.htm....bibli... + internal/external tests


www.defendingyourfaith.org/New%20Testame...


www.amazon.com/Historical-Reliability-Bi... ....list of 40 books on  "The Historical Reliability of the Bible"


bibleexaminator.hubpages.com/hub/The-Bib... ....


www.wtsbooks.com/pdf_files/9781433529993... Scripture ..."


www.whyfaith.com/docs/The%20Historical%2... ....historical reliability if the NT


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_hist...

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 08, 2012 - 3:23AM #2
Namchuck
Posts: 11,802

May 7, 2012 -- 3:26PM, Rgurley4 wrote:


The BIBLE: Reliability and Historical Accuracy


RELIABILITY of the 4 Gospels and "Dr." Luke's investigations in at least Acts 1-12:


John 14:26...Jesus to his followers: the Upper Room Discourse


"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name,
will teach you ALL things and will remind you of EVERYTHING  I have said to you." (and DID!)


I believe that:


1. Jesus the Christ is NOT just a mythical creation of the early "Church"
    ....But rather a God-Man appearing at a perfect time and place in history for a miraculous Incarnation.


2. Internal and external evidence contained in reliable ancient documents
    supports the historical reliability of the gospel accounts about Jesus of Nazareth.


3. Most importantly, these 4 harmonious Gospels and other documents show hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus the God-Man and His post-resurrection appearances and deeds.


4. The resurrection of Jesus, True God, True Man in turn, authenticates Jesus’ and others claims of Divinity of the Christ, the Messiah, Son of God, Son of Man, LORD.


5. Because Jesus is a spiritual PERSON of the TRI-UNE GOD, His testimony concerning the Scriptures is TRUE.


6. Jesus words and ministry bore witness to the complete spiritual authority of the "Word of God".


7. Conclusion: the historical reliability of the New Testament affirms the resurrection of Jesus the Christ, and the resurrected and ascended Jesus the Christ affirms the Divine Authority of the Scriptures / Our Bible!


Extracts and editing from: bible.org/seriespage/reliability-bible


www.godandscience.org/apologetics/authen... ....a compendium on conservative scholarly views


www.leestrobel.com/....apologetics of conservative Christ-followers


biblesanity.org/reliability.htm....bibli... + internal/external tests


www.defendingyourfaith.org/New%20Testame...


www.amazon.com/Historical-Reliability-Bi... ....list of 40 books on  "The Historical Reliability of the Bible"


bibleexaminator.hubpages.com/hub/The-Bib... ....


www.wtsbooks.com/pdf_files/9781433529993... Scripture ..."


www.whyfaith.com/docs/The%20Historical%2... ....historical reliability if the NT


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_hist...




The Bible is not always historically accurate, as a thousand scholarly books that could be cited show, and neither is their compelling evidence that Jesus even existed. One thing for sure, the Christ of faith never did.


As Mark Twain succinctly put it: 'The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it, and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.' 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 14, 2012 - 6:21PM #3
TPaine
Posts: 9,427

May 8, 2012 -- 3:23AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 7, 2012 -- 3:26PM, Rgurley4 wrote:


The BIBLE: Reliability and Historical Accuracy


RELIABILITY of the 4 Gospels and "Dr." Luke's investigations in at least Acts 1-12:


John 14:26...Jesus to his followers: the Upper Room Discourse


"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name,
will teach you ALL things and will remind you of EVERYTHING  I have said to you." (and DID!)


I believe that:


1. Jesus the Christ is NOT just a mythical creation of the early "Church"
    ....But rather a God-Man appearing at a perfect time and place in history for a miraculous Incarnation.


2. Internal and external evidence contained in reliable ancient documents
    supports the historical reliability of the gospel accounts about Jesus of Nazareth.


3. Most importantly, these 4 harmonious Gospels and other documents show hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus the God-Man and His post-resurrection appearances and deeds.


4. The resurrection of Jesus, True God, True Man in turn, authenticates Jesus’ and others claims of Divinity of the Christ, the Messiah, Son of God, Son of Man, LORD.


5. Because Jesus is a spiritual PERSON of the TRI-UNE GOD, His testimony concerning the Scriptures is TRUE.


6. Jesus words and ministry bore witness to the complete spiritual authority of the "Word of God".


7. Conclusion: the historical reliability of the New Testament affirms the resurrection of Jesus the Christ, and the resurrected and ascended Jesus the Christ affirms the Divine Authority of the Scriptures / Our Bible!


Extracts and editing from: bible.org/seriespage/reliability-bible


www.godandscience.org/apologetics/authen... ....a compendium on conservative scholarly views


www.leestrobel.com/....apologetics of conservative Christ-followers


biblesanity.org/reliability.htm....bibli... + internal/external tests


www.defendingyourfaith.org/New%20Testame...


www.amazon.com/Historical-Reliability-Bi... ....list of 40 books on  "The Historical Reliability of the Bible"


bibleexaminator.hubpages.com/hub/The-Bib... ....


www.wtsbooks.com/pdf_files/9781433529993... Scripture ..."


www.whyfaith.com/docs/The%20Historical%2... ....historical reliability if the NT


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_hist...



The Bible is not always historically accurate, as a thousand scholarly books that could be cited show, and neither is their compelling evidence that Jesus even existed. One thing for sure, the Christ of faith never did.


As Mark Twain succinctly put it: 'The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it, and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.'



I found it interesting that Rgurley4 added the link to the Amazon site. The majority of authors listed there including Thomas L. Thompson, Hector Avalos, Philip R. Davies, Niels Peter Lemche, Robert M. Price, George Albert Wells, R. Joseph Hoffmann, Israel Finkelstein, John Dominic Crossan, and Bart D. Ehrman do not believe that the Bible is historically accurate.


"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." -- General Smedley Butler: War is a Racket (1935)

"War is mankind's most tragic and stupid folly; to seek or advise its deliberate provocation is a black crime against all men. Though you follow the trade of the warrior, you do so in the spirit of Washington — not of Genghis Khan. For Americans, only threat to our way of life justifies resort to conflict." - General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower: Graduation Exercises at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, USA at 3 June 1947
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 14, 2012 - 9:32PM #4
JRT
Posts: 340

 


I approach the bible much like a prospector approaches his claim. I will search for the shining nuggets of wisdom and insight but, like him, I am prepared to have shift a lot of rubble in order to find them.
the floggings will continue until morale improves
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 15, 2012 - 11:12AM #5
Rgurley4
Posts: 8,952

The TRUTH in the historical documents of Scripture and its study...


The absolute truth is SPIRITUAL truth. Relative truths come from Man.
The supreme place to find SPIRITUAL truth is in the Scriptures and supporting historical documents.
 
The LIBERAL VIEW?:



...the Bible is no more special than any other book, holy or otherwise....
...the Bible can be used and manipulated to teach whatever someone wants it to teach... 
...IF the Bible is/was God's way of reaching out to mankind, it is an extremely poor effort on God's part...


CONSERVATIVE VIEW OF THE BIBLE:


The Bible (Scripture) is the supreme authority when compared to other writings and precepts in all matters....especially "doctrine" = absolute spiritual truth!
All of the ACTUAL WORDS therein were "Spirit Inspired", and "superintended" by God.
The authors and their scribes recorded these words in "original manuscripts" which were without error.
Systematic study of Scripture leads one to the conclusion that it is God's supreme way of speaking to Man.
The "economy" or God's methods of relating to Man changed from Old Testament times to New Testament due to the historical appearance of Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the God-Man.
The Bible as a piece of literature is withhout peer, and it has been miraculously inspired, dictated, written, copied, preserved, translated, and distributed.


Titus 1:9
He (believer) must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, (by oral tradition and written Scripture)
so that he can encourage others by SOUND DOCTRINE and refute those who oppose it.


Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is alive and active.
Sharper than any double-edged sword,
it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit,
joints and marrow; (body)
 it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. (soul and spirit)

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 15, 2012 - 3:18PM #6
Joe68
Posts: 289

The Bible has strongest bibliographic support than any classical or ancient literature; more manuscript copies, from an earlier dates (i.e. closer to their original composition date), and from more diverse geographical regions. This all ensures the trustworthiness of the Old Testament text. Or at least makes it more trustworthy then any other classical or ancient literature.


These facts do not prove that the Bible is historically true, but it does mean we know what the original writers wrote. Without this assurance, the question of historical reliability is pointless. But much of the biblical text has been shown to relate reliable historical events. It has been shown to be correct in its description of geographical locations, its flora, fauna, and cultural milieu.


Secular historians like the Jewish Josephus (before A.D. 100), the Roman Tacitus (around A.D. 120), the Roman Suetonius (A.D. 110), and the Roman governor Pliny Secundus (A.D. 100-110) make direct reference to Jesus or affirm one or more historical New Testament references.


Critics dismissed the Book of Daniel, partly because there was no evidence that a king named Belshazzar ruled in Babylon during that time period. However, later archaeological research confirmed that the reigning monarch, Nabonidus, appointed Belshazzar as his co-regent whi1e he was away from Babylon.


A biblical skeptic, Sir William Ramsay, trained as an archaeologist and then set out to disprove the historical reliability of this portion of the New Testament. However, through his painstaking Mediterranean archaeological trips, he became converted as — one after another — of the historical statements of Luke were proved accurate. Archaeological evidence thus confirms the trustworthiness of the Bible.


Furthermore the fact that the Biblical writers had distinct ideological or theological emphases does not mean they distorted history, as is often alleged. Oftentimes the very cause that a historian or biographer supports requires them to write their accounts accurately, for they know that their cause will be undermined if they are charged with bias or distortion. The first Christians had the uphill battle of promoting a crucified Messiah and His bodily resurrection. Had they been known to have falsified the details of their accounts to any significant degree, their movement would have been squelched from the outset.


If the Gospel writers felt free to distort what Jesus originally said or historical events in order to increase the attractiveness of Christianity, why would they preserve unmodified His difficult and easily misunderstood teachings about hating family members (Lk 14:26) or not knowing when He would return (Mk 13:32)? Nor did they modify the text where they all denied Christ. Nor did they modify the text where Christ rebuked them on several occasions. Why keep in these embarrassing details if they could modify the texts? The fact that they let these teachings stand indicates their faithfulness to recount true history.


The fact that the NT does not record Jesus speaking about many of the topics that arose after His earthly life, during the time of the early church, supports its historical accuracy. For instance, early Christians were divided over how or whether the laws of Moses applied to Gentile converts (Ac 15). The easiest way to settle the controversy would be to cite Jesus' teachings on the matter, but the Gospels record no such teachings. This silence suggests that the Gospel writers did not feel free to play fast and loose with history by putting on the lips of Jesus teachings that could solve early church controversies.


Does this mean that everything in the Bible has been confirmed historically? No. However it is not reasonable to think that we have enough data to confirm every single event. There is a difference between something being unconfirmed and it being proven false. But since archaeology regularly confirms much of the details about the geography, topography, customs, artifacts, buildings, tombs, inscriptions, and historical events that are mentioned in Bible and controverts nothing one can be assured of the historical accuracy of the Biblical texts.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 15, 2012 - 3:55PM #7
MMarcoe
Posts: 17,262

May 15, 2012 -- 11:12AM, Rgurley4 wrote:


The TRUTH in the historical documents of Scripture and its study...


The absolute truth is SPIRITUAL truth. Relative truths come from Man.
The supreme place to find SPIRITUAL truth is in the Scriptures and supporting historical documents.
 
The LIBERAL VIEW?:



...the Bible is no more special than any other book, holy or otherwise....
...the Bible can be used and manipulated to teach whatever someone wants it to teach... 
...IF the Bible is/was God's way of reaching out to mankind, it is an extremely poor effort on God's part...


There is no "liberal" view. These things you're saying are just strawman nonsense that your sect preaches.


 


 


CONSERVATIVE VIEW OF THE BIBLE:


The Bible (Scripture) is the supreme authority when compared to other writings and precepts in all matters....especially "doctrine" = absolute spiritual truth!
All of the ACTUAL WORDS therein were "Spirit Inspired", and "superintended" by God.
The authors and their scribes recorded these words in "original manuscripts" which were without error.
Systematic study of Scripture leads one to the conclusion that it is God's supreme way of speaking to Man.
The "economy" or God's methods of relating to Man changed from Old Testament times to New Testament due to the historical appearance of Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the God-Man.
The Bible as a piece of literature is withhout peer, and it has been miraculously inspired, dictated, written, copied, preserved, translated, and distributed.


Titus 1:9
He (believer) must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, (by oral tradition and written Scripture)
so that he can encourage others by SOUND DOCTRINE and refute those who oppose it.


Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is alive and active.
Sharper than any double-edged sword,
it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit,
joints and marrow; (body)
 it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. (soul and spirit)


There is no "conservative" view. These things you're saying are just strawman nonsense that your sect preaches.


As for the Bible being the supreme authority, that was once a "liberal" view.


I don't think you know the difference between liberal and conservative.





1. Extremists think that thinking means agreeing with them.
2. There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
3. God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 15, 2012 - 4:13PM #8
Joe68
Posts: 289

Actually there are distinctive liberal and conservative views of the Bible.


See Here, here, here, or here

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 15, 2012 - 5:24PM #9
TPaine
Posts: 9,427

May 15, 2012 -- 11:12AM, Rgurley4 wrote:


The TRUTH in the historical documents of Scripture and its study...


The absolute truth is SPIRITUAL truth. Relative truths come from Man.
The supreme place to find SPIRITUAL truth is in the Scriptures and supporting historical documents.
 
The LIBERAL VIEW?:



...the Bible is no more special than any other book, holy or otherwise....
...the Bible can be used and manipulated to teach whatever someone wants it to teach... 
...IF the Bible is/was God's way of reaching out to mankind, it is an extremely poor effort on God's part...



The Bible teaches some decent moral and ethical codes, but those are also taught in other holy books as well as in Æsop's Fables and the Confucian Si Shu, and Wu Jing among others.


May 15, 2012 -- 11:12AM, Rgurley4 wrote:

CONSERVATIVE VIEW OF THE BIBLE:


The Bible (Scripture) is the supreme authority when compared to other writings and precepts in all matters....especially "doctrine" = absolute spiritual truth!



And the proof of that claim is....?


May 15, 2012 -- 11:12AM, Rgurley4 wrote:

All of the ACTUAL WORDS therein were "Spirit Inspired", and "superintended" by God.



If so why are there so many contradictions, false statements, misinterpretations, and mis-attributions in it? Wouldn't an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God make sure that wouldn't happen?


May 15, 2012 -- 11:12AM, Rgurley4 wrote:

The authors and their scribes recorded these words in "original manuscripts" which were without error.



Since we don't have any original manuscripts how do we know they were without error? We don't even know who the majority of authors were. In the New Testament only seven of the thirteen Pauline epistles (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon) and the Revelation of John of Patmos are correctly attributed. The rest are pseudepigraphic or anonymous.


May 15, 2012 -- 11:12AM, Rgurley4 wrote:

Systematic study of Scripture leads one to the conclusion that it is God's supreme way of speaking to Man.



I doubt it was God who caused the men who translated the Hebrew Tanakh into the Greek Septuagint (LXX) to mistranslate ha'almah in Isaiah 7:14 as virgin rather than young woman. The Hebrew word for virgin is betulah. Since the author of Matthew was a Greek speaker he used the LXX as his source.


May 15, 2012 -- 11:12AM, Rgurley4 wrote:

The "economy" or God's methods of relating to Man changed from Old Testament times to New Testament due to the historical appearance of Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the God-Man.



It seems likely there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth in the first century CE. It would make sense that an itinerant Jewish rabbi who preached the message of Hillel the Elder who had died in 10 BCE. Rome would have considered his popularity to be a threat to their rule, his message would have been a threat to the Bet Shammai dominated Sanhedrin which opposed Hillel's views, and the combination could have led to his crucifixion.


May 15, 2012 -- 11:12AM, Rgurley4 wrote:

The Bible as a piece of literature is withhout peer, and it has been miraculously inspired, dictated, written, copied, preserved, translated, and distributed.



There are many pieces of literature that surpass the Bible. Some examples that predated the New Testament are Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, Plato's Apology of Socrates and Republic, Aristotle's Poetics, Nicomachean Ethics, Politics, and De Anima, Virgil's Eclogues (or Bucolics), the Georgics, and Aeneid, Livy's Ab Urbe Condita Libri, Cicero's De Re Publica and De Legibus, and Cato the Elder's Praecepta ad Filium


"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." -- General Smedley Butler: War is a Racket (1935)

"War is mankind's most tragic and stupid folly; to seek or advise its deliberate provocation is a black crime against all men. Though you follow the trade of the warrior, you do so in the spirit of Washington — not of Genghis Khan. For Americans, only threat to our way of life justifies resort to conflict." - General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower: Graduation Exercises at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, USA at 3 June 1947
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 15, 2012 - 5:55PM #10
amcolph
Posts: 18,004

May 15, 2012 -- 11:12AM, Rgurley4 wrote:


 
The LIBERAL VIEW?:




...the Bible is no more special than any other book, holy or otherwise....



No.  Liberal Christians revere the Bible.  Many think it is the inspired Word of God.


 
...the Bible can be used and manipulated to teach whatever someone wants it to teach...



It has been.


 

...IF the Bible is/was God's way of reaching out to mankind, it is an extremely poor effort on God's part...



Fortunately, God chose to give us Jesus instead.


CONSERVATIVE VIEW OF THE BIBLE:



Keep in mind that your view of the Bible, as presented here, is a minority view in Christendom.  The rest of us hold a wide variety of beliefs.


That is why it is not as easy as you think to stereotype those who believe differently about the Bible.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 14  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 14 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook