Is the Bible True?

[Marek James]

A Remarkable Book
Is the Bible true? Certainly the Bible is a remarkable book -- unquestionably the world's all-time bestseller with countless millions of copies in print. A single Bible distribution organization reported delivering over 627,000,000 Bibles worldwide in one year alone (United Bible Societies, 1999). Actually, the Bible is a compilation of 66 books written by over 40 separate authors from a variety of backgrounds (from lowly peasants to noble kings) over a period of at least 1,600 years. These 66 books are divided in two principle parts, the "Old Testament" (39 books) and the "New Testament" (27 books). The Bible was completed in its entirety nearly 2,000 years ago and stands today as the best-preserved literary work of all antiquity with over 24,000 ancient New Testament manuscripts discovered thus far. Compare this with the second best-preserved literary work of antiquity, Homer's Iliad, with only 643 preserved manuscripts discovered to date.

Copied from Here  

[Marek James]

"…By inspiration of God"
So, is the Bible true? If the Bible is indeed what it claims to be, the implications for us are considerable. The Bible candidly claims to be "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). Of course, the Bible is not the only book to claim divine inspiration, but it is unique in that it offers substantial evidence to back its claims. It even goes so far as to challenge its readers to put it to the test, exhorting us to "Test all things" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

Same Source  

[Marek James]

The Test of Prophecy
Is the Bible True? Unquestionably, the single greatest evidence lending to the veracity of the Bible's claims of divine inspiration is the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Consider this: if man were able to clearly and consistently foresee the future, would the billion-dollar Las Vegas gambling industry exist? We're willing to bet it wouldn't. As man by himself is unable to foresee future events, prophecy is a reasonable indicator of supernatural inspiration. The Bible purports to contain more than a thousand inspired prophecies. The vast majority of these prophecies have already come to pass and can be verified by secular history. Consider, for example, Ezekiel's prophecies concerning God's judgment against the ancient Phoenician capital of Tyre (Ezekiel, chapter 26). The prophecy states that Tyre would first be razed by Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar. Later, it would be utterly destroyed by a coalition of nations, flattened like the top of a rock, its ruins (and even its dust) scraped and thrown into the sea, becoming a place for fishermen to spread their nets. The surrounding nations would witness Tyre's fate and surrender without a fight. It's a rather odd prophecy. Amazingly, the conditions of Ezekiel's prophecy were fulfilled, even to the tiniest detail. Nebuchadnezzar sacked Tyre. Later, Alexander the Great led a coalition of nations against Tyre, demolished it, scraped it to bedrock and threw its ruins into the sea. The ancient site became (and remains to this day) a place for local fishermen to spread their nets to dry. (For secular confirmation, see General History for Colleges and High Schools, Boston, Ginn & Co., p. 55).

Prophecy is not just a phenomenon of the ancient past. Bible prophecy is being fulfilled today before our eyes. Consider the nation of Israel. The Jews were "the least of all peoples" (Deuteronomy 7:7), without a homeland and without freedom, serving as slaves in Egypt. At the time, Egypt was the dominant world power. However, because of a promise God made to a man named Abraham, his son Isaac, and his grandson Jacob centuries earlier, God rescued the Israelites from their bondage "with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with signs, and with wonders" (Deuteronomy 26:8. God gave the Israelites a homeland of their own, made a covenant with them, and entrusted them with the Bible. Israel was a nation set apart for God -- God's testimony to a world that turned its back on the One who created them. Sadly, Israel's history, like that of the world's, was one of constant rebellion against God. Over and over, the Jewish people would rebel, suffer God's wrath, humble themselves, regret their rebellion and turn back to God, and receive God's blessing again - then start the process all over again… Finally, God sent nations upon them (like He did with ancient Tyre) and drove the Jews from their homeland. In 70 AD, Roman legions decimated Israel, dispersed the Jews throughout the world, and banned them from ever reentering their homeland. The Jews were without a homeland for 1,900 years! Nevertheless, God promised the Jews that though He would remove them from the land, they would remain an identifiable people and would return to their land again. (see, for example, Leviticus 26:13-16; Nehemiah 1:8-9; Deuteronomy 30:1-5). It is a miracle in itself that the Jews have survived and remained an identifiable people without a homeland for 1,900 years. All other nations who have ever lost their homeland became assimilated into the surrounding nations and lost their identity within a few hundred years. Yet the Jews have remained and miraculously returned to Israel as their official homeland in 1948.

Same Source  

[Marek James]

Archaeology
Is the Bible true? Not only does the Bible miraculously foretell the future, it also recounts the distant past with great accuracy. As such, archaeology has been a source of great vindication for the Bible. In Josh McDowell's classic treatise on the historical evidences supporting the Bible's veracity, renowned archaeologist Nelson Glueck is quoted as saying, "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference." (McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Here's Life Publishers Inc., 1979, p. 65.)

Consider, for example, the biblical account of Israel's exodus from Egypt. Pharaoh, Egypt's monarch, chased the Israelites with an army of chariots, cornering Israel at the Gulf of Aqaba (the Red Sea). God miraculously parted the Red Sea allowing Israel to pass through over a land bridge. The Egyptians followed in close pursuit, but after the last Israelite made it across, God released the parted water and drowned the Egyptian army. Archaeologists have discovered a number of evidences vindicating the Bible's exodus account, including chariot wheels embedded in coral along the land bridge at the bottom of the Red Sea. (Exodus Revealed, video documentary by Discovery Media Productions.)

Source  

[Marek James]

The Authors
Is the Bible true? Consider the integrity of the Bible's authors -- men who claimed to be inspired by God. Take for example Luke, who authored approximately one-quarter of the entire New Testament. Luke is regarded as an authoritative historian -- one of the greatest of antiquity. Dr. John McRay, Professor of New Testament and Archaeology at Wheaton University in Illinois, explains, "The general consensus of both liberal and conservative scholars is that Luke is very accurate as a historian. He's erudite, he's eloquent, his Greek approaches classical quality, he writes as an educated man, and archaeological discoveries are showing over and over again that Luke is accurate in what he has to say." (John McRay, quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ, Zondervan, 1998, p. 129.)

Sir William Ramsey, one of the greatest archaeologists of modern times, declared, "Luke is a historian of the first rank." (Sir William Ramsey, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 1915, p. 222.)

Now, let's consider the martyrdom of many of these authors. According to sources and traditions outside the Bible, many of the Bible's writers died brutal and horrible deaths in defense of their written testimony. In fact, all but one of the New Testament's authors were executed for proclaiming and defending their testimonies (John was spared, but forced into exile by Roman Emperor Titus). Of course, martyrdom in itself is not unique -- many people throughout history have died willingly for their beliefs. What makes the New Testament authors' martyrdom special is that these men were in a position to know the truth of their written accounts.

Think about it -- no one knowingly dies for a lie! For example, the September 11th suicide hijackers may have sincerely believed in what they died for, but they weren't in a position to know whether their beliefs were absolutely true. The hijackers put their faith in religious traditions passed down over many generations. In contrast, the Bible's martyrs were in a position to know the truth. They were eyewitnesses to the historical events they recorded. Either they saw what they claimed to see or they didn't -- plain and simple. Nevertheless, these men clung to their testimonies, even to their brutal deaths at the hands of their persecutors, and despite being given every chance to recant their stories. Why would so many men knowingly die for a lie? They had nothing to gain for lying… and everything to lose.

Source  

[Marek James]

Judge For Yourself…
Is the Bible true? For those of us who don't believe that God inspired the Bible, how do we explain it? What compelling reason do we have to reject the Bible as God's divine revelation to man? We should lay aside our philosophical disposition, examine the evidence objectively, and weigh the facts for ourselves… And then ask: Is the Bible true?

Source  

[freelance lover]

I believe the Bible was divinely inspired and is still relevant today. I don't believe all of it is word-for-word true or meant to be taken literally though.

You have to understand the different types of literature within the Bible. Apocalyptic literature, like Revelation, Isaiah, and Daniel is almost always meant to be taken metaphorically. It is an allegory, which usually describes something that will happen in the near future. Revelation is an especially great example of this, as it's widely believed it was written in a code to avoid Roman censorship.

Other pieces of literature, like the creation stories, I believe are also meant to be taken metaphorically. Every culture that has ever existed in the world has creation stories of some sort, and very few of them take these stories literally. This, combined with the fact the creation stories are blatantly contradictory, leads to assume that they may not be word-for-word true. The point still remains: God created the world and everything in it.

Now, as for the Gospels and the Histories (Kings, Chronicles, etc) I think those are more or less true. They're old so I'm cool with them not being 100% accurate but they exist to document the history of the Jewish people and the life of our savior. I believe them to be more or less literal and true. Paul's letters are also more than likely true since we have historical evidence to back up much of what the letters say and we're, in essence, reading someone else's mail. These letters exist for the same reason the Histories do- to chronicle the history of a new and blossoming religion. You always do have to remember that these scriptures are old though, so things get redacted and edited, both on purpose and by accident. The Bible is an old book that's gone through numerous translations so you have to account for a margin of error. I also think many of the numbers give (there being x amount of men at this battle) is generally more symbolic than literal as well.

The rest of the Bible is really a mish-mosh of laws, praises, sayings, and other things which are much more timeless and are aimed at spiritual growth. They are much more focused on praising God and living a fulfilled life, so it doesn't matter if you lived 1000 years ago or are living in today's world- they're more or less relevant, in some way. It's important to remember that Biblical literalism is a relatively recent phenomenon and for most of history the Bible was not taken as literally as fundamentalists take it today.  

[comfylove]

Wow! So much information!

To point out something that I learned in my last Bible Study that I found incredibly interesting -- well, I'd have to explain a bit. My Bible Study is led by a woman who is extremely intelligent in the Word and just in life. She also knows Hebrew. We were finishing up the Old Testament through the minor prophets, and came to Malachi, which opens with:

Malachi 1:1 (ESV)

The oracle of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi.

She said that the actual word by, in Hebrew used here, would mean along the lines of inspired by God by Malachi's hand. Since Malachi also means "my messenger," I think it gives credit, since names are pretty important in the Bible.

Anyway, I am going to have to respectfully disagree with freelance lover; I believe the whole Bible not only to be inspired by God, but written exactly the way God would have intended, as well as completely true. If I believe one part of the Bible, but not the other, it's not very creditable. I do not feel like I have the power to pick and chose what is right in God's Word, especially since I believe God's Word to be perfect, and Scripture to be the only perfect thing on Earth at the moment, other than the works of the Holy Spirit.  

[ferret658]

I totally agree with everything said. Another point would be to say that the New Testament was being written almost immediately after Jesus was crucified. People who were there could have stood up and said that the writers of the NT were liars, but no one did. There is no historical record of any great debate about Jesus' existence among the men who were there to witness the miracles.  

[freelance lover]

ferret658

I totally agree with everything said. Another point would be to say that the New Testament was being written almost immediately after Jesus was crucified. People who were there could have stood up and said that the writers of the NT were liars, but no one did. There is no historical record of any great debate about Jesus' existence among the men who were there to witness the miracles.

It depends on your definition of "immediate". Relatively speaking, yes they were, but the final manuscripts we have today were not compiled right after Jesus was crucified. I wish I had my Biblical Literature text book, but sadly it's packed away in a box in my boyfriend's apartment. Mark is believed to be the first Gospel written, followed by Matthew, Luke, and then finally John. Mark is usually dated about 70 CE, meaning it's about 30-40 years after Christ's death. John, the last one was written about 100 CE.

40 years isn't a whole lot of time considering the age of the Bible, but it's not like someone ran in a wrote down everything immediately after Jesus rose from the dead. Chances are text began to be written shortly after, but the Gospels we have were not compiled until after wards.

You also have to consider the synoptic theory. The idea is that Mark, Matthew, and Luke all have a common source, referred to as the Q source. Basically, it was a text that is no longer in existence which all three of the author's referenced when compiling their Gospel. That's why Mark, Matthew, and Luke are very similar in stories and sequencing, while John is kind of off doing his own thing.

You also have to consider the author may not have necessarily been the disciple Matthew, Mark, Luke, of John and that each Gospel has it's own agenda. Luke is concerned with taking care of the poor and hungry, while Mark is much more aimed at the upper class and those who have already been following Jewish law. John is much more focused on spirituality and on Jesus' divinity.

That was kind of a really long tangent but let me bring it back to a point- while I believe the Gospels are, for the most part true, they're not going to line up perfectly because they all references different sources. I believe the Gospels do record Jesus' life, but through the lens of the author. They each have their own interpretation of Jesus message, and are referencing other accounts of the stories, regardless of if they witnessed it first hand or not.

I am such a Bible geek... sweatdrop  

[comfylove]

The authors to all of the Gospels are ultimately unknown. However, according to my ESV Study Bible, scholars do speculate highly that whoever was the author of Luke is also the author of Acts.

Here is what my Study Bible has to say of the dates of all the books of the Gospel:

Date of Matthew

The precise date of the writing of Matthew's Gospel is not known. Some scholars argue for a date later than the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, since Jesus alludes to this event in 24:1-28. Of course, such a conclusion is warranted only if one denies Jesus' ability to predict the future. In light of Irenaeus's assertion (c. A.D. 175) that Matthew composed his Gospel while Peter and Paul were still living (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1), it is traditionally dated to the late 50s or early 60s.

Date of Mark

The external and internal data most convincingly point to Rome as the place of composition and a date for Mark in the mid-to-late 50s A.D. (but some scholars date it in the mid-or late-60s). The argument in favor of the mid- to late-50s is that the book of Acts ends with Paul in prison c. A.D. 62, leading many scholars to blieve that Acts was written around that time. If Acts was written in the early 60s, then Luke's Gospel was written before Acts (cf. Luke 1:3 with Acts 1:1), sometimes in the early 60s.

Date of Luke

The earliest possible date of Luke--Acts is immediately after the events that Luke recorded in Acts 28, c. A.D. 62. In fact, Luke could have been written slightly earlier, and Acts could have been completed at that time. The specific date centers on two questions: would Luke have added to his Gospel later, and did he make use of the Gospel of Mark in writing his own Gospel? If Luke wrote Luke--Acts after the martyrdom of Paul (c. A.D. 64-67), some have suggested that the omission of the details of Paul's trial and death seems strange. In addition, Luke makes no mention of the terrible persecution under Nero in A.D. 65 but gives a very positive picture of Paul preaching the gospel in Rome for two years "with all boldness and without hindrance" (Acts 28:31), so he must have written sometime before A.D. 65.

Date of John

The most likely date of writing is the period between A.D. 70 (the date of the destruction of the temple) and A.D. 100 (the end of John's lifetime), but there is not enough evidence to be much more precise. A date subsequent to A.D. 70 is suggested, among other things, by the references in 6:1 and 21:1 to the Sea of Tiberias (a name widely used for the Sea of Galilee only toward the end of the 1st century), the reference in 21:19 to Peter's martyrdom (which according to patristic evidence occurred in A.D. 65 or 66), and the lack of reference to the Sadducees (who ceased to be a Jewish religious party after A.D. 70). The testimony of the early church also favors a date after A.D. 70. Thus Clement of Alexandria stated, "Last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts has been made plain [in the other canonical Gospels] . . . composed a spiritual gospel" [cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.7]).

n__n  

[freelance lover]

@comfortable: You are made of so much win. Thanks for posting that. And yeah, I forgot to mention Luke and Acts were probably written by the same guy.

I'm taking a Gospel and Acts class in the fall- super excited biggrin  

[comfylove]

You are quite welcome! Thank you! n_n
I just love Study Bibles (yours sounds like one, too?), they are so helpful. There's things in there that I didn't even consider learning, but I am so happy now that they've included it!

And wow, I am jealous! Is it at your school?
The only class that my school offers that's remotely close to anything having to do with Christianity is World Religions. stare  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

@Marek: Please be sure you are abiding by the guild rules; all posts copied directly from another source (book, etc.) need to be posted in the media discussion subforum. Thank you.

Once you've replied to this, your thread will be moved to the appropriate subforum.  

[freelance lover]

comfortably_dumb

You are quite welcome! Thank you! n_n
I just love Study Bibles (yours sounds like one, too?), they are so helpful. There's things in there that I didn't even consider learning, but I am so happy now that they've included it!

And wow, I am jealous! Is it at your school?
The only class that my school offers that's remotely close to anything having to do with Christianity is World Religions. stare

I go to a private university affiliated with the United Methodist church. We're required to take Into to Biblical Literature, which is really very secular look at the Bible, the history it was written in, and so on. We're also required an ethics and values class, and I took World Religions. I'm also a religion minor, so I've also taken a class on Biblical exegesis, and then I'm taking Gospels and Acts in the call. We have really great professors in the religion school here, so it's really awesome.

And study Bible are made of win.