Biblical evidence

[savethedreams]

Does anybody have any convincing arguments or reasons to how the bible is believable, accurate, and the 'word of god' even with all the inaccuracies?

What make the bible non-fictional.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The Bible is a library of religious stories and writings, collected from Early Christian and Jewish texts.
It contains the majority of the teachings of Jesus and texts he would have known as a Jewish teacher, and much later writings.

None of it can be considered set in stone... in many cases the four Gospels cover the same stories and events with rather different quotations.
This is Just as one might expect for any eye-witness or passed down statement.

there is no doubt that collating the Texts as was done, has preserved them for us to day.
Those that were not collected or included at the time are now largely lost to us.
It could easily be argued that there are probably many lost texts that would be seen in a different light today, were they still available.

From time to time some have been found, and perhaps many more will come to light in the future. However this is only a potential problem for those who believe the Bible is the Last and true word of God. The majority of Christians have never read every word and story in the Bible . Even more have not understood every thing that they have read.

Over Time, we may come to a better understanding, through newly found and existing texts. And the Bible might be reconfigured. But it can never be the complete and inerrant word of God.

 

[Strangelove]

Does anybody have any convincing arguments or reasons to how the bible is believable, accurate, and the 'word of god' even with all the inaccuracies?

What make the bible non-fictional.

It's up to God whether you believe in the authenticity of scripture and the events therein.

Ask God to open your eyes then read His Word. There is no convincing man made argument or 'reasons' that will help you. Only God's Word.

(Hebrews 4:12) For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

If you read the Gospels and still feel the way you do then its not for you.

 

[Pegg]

Does anybody have any convincing arguments or reasons to how the bible is believable, accurate, and the 'word of god' even with all the inaccuracies?

What make the bible non-fictional.

archeology has confirmed many of the accounts in the bible. they have unearthed writings which backup what has been recorded in the bible, they have found places and secular people mentioned in the bible. The bible has been so reliable that archeologists often use the bible accounts to go searching for things. Anyone who really believes the bible is a work of fiction needs to do some proper research on the matter.

But even if you refuse to accept that it is a book inspired by God, it is still a very accurate record of history...more accurate and detailed then some of the other ancient historians.

 

[No Good Boyo]

archeology has confirmed many of the accounts in the bible. they have unearthed writings which backup what has been recorded in the bible, they have found places and secular people mentioned in the bible. The bible has been so reliable that archeologists often use the bible accounts to go searching for things. Anyone who really believes the bible is a work of fiction needs to do some proper research on the matter.

But even if you refuse to accept that it is a book inspired by God, it is still a very accurate record of history...more accurate and detailed then some of the other ancient historians.

By the same token many biblical events have been brought into question through archaeology. Many archaeologists and Egyptologists will distupe the existance of moses on the grounds of logic and evidence (both historical and archaeological.

 

[Pegg]

By the same token many biblical events have been brought into question through archaeology. Many archaeologists and Egyptologists will distupe the existance of moses on the grounds of logic and evidence (both historical and archaeological.

what i've come to appreciate is that there is just enough evidence for people who wish to accept it. And for those who dont want to accept it, there is not quite enough.

While direct physical proof may be lacking, there is considerable indirect evidence that the Bible account is credible. Some Egyptoligists acknowledge the archaeological evidence demonstrating that Egypt was frequented by the peoples of the semitic languages due to times of drought. They also acknowledge that the Bible’s description of Egyptian slavery is accurate.

Its not far fetched to believe the account that Moses was adopted by a princess of Egypt considering Egyptian religion taught that kind deeds were a requisite for entrance into heaven. Archaeologists pretty much agree that Egyptian women achieved parity with Egyptian men and enjoyed the same legal and economic rights and that women could make adoptions.

And just because there is no Egyptian record of the exodus event, that doesnt mean it didnt happen. Its been shown that Egyptians were quick to alter their historical records when the truth proved to be embarrassing or went against their political interests. When Thutmose III came to power, he tried to obliterate the memory of his predecessor, Hatshepsut. He had her inscriptions erased, and covered her obelisks by a wall...her name was even left out of later annals. So if they would do that to their own rulers...why wouldn't they do it to a slave nation? Im pretty sure they would.

 

[InChrist]

Go to any library, anywhere in the world and choose 66 books, written by 40 different authors of various backgrounds, over a 1500 hundred year period, in 3 different languages, and on 3 continents. The collection of books you choose must have a common storyline, theme, and message with no historical errors. Does anyone think it is possible to put together a collection of books which meet these requirements?

The Bible is a collection: 66 books, written by 40 different authors, over 1500 years, in 3 languages, and on 3 continents with a common storyline, theme, and message with historical accuracy and archeological support.

These 66 books of the Bible contain a variety of genres: history, poetry, prophecy, wisdom literature, letters, and apocalyptic just to name a few.
These books were written by 40 different authors. These authors came from a variety of backgrounds: shepherds, fishermen, doctors, kings, prophets, and others. Most of these authors never knew one another personally.
The books were written over a period of 1500 years. Yet again, this is another reminder that many of these authors never knew or collaborated with one another in writing these books.
The books of the Bible were written in 3 different languages. There are books that were written in the ancient languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic; a reflection of the historical and cultural circumstances in which each of these books were written.
These 66 books were also written on 3 different continents: Africa, Asia, and Europe. Again, this is a testament to the varied historical and cultural circumstances.
Considering all the variables, it is not possible that humans alone could have written or put together the books which compose the Bible. The Bible itself proves that it was inspired and orchestrated By God. No other religious writings compare to the Bible.

 

[earlwooters]

Different bibles have different numbers of books. The number of authors is at best a guess. There were hundreds of Jewish and Christian books floating around between 60 and 120 ce. God did not decide which books were to be included in the Bible and which were not. The Catholic church decided this. Many of the books of the old testament are remakes of older written stories from a far earlier period from a very different culture. The Epic Of Gilgamesh is the most known. Also the deity EL, "Elohim" (plural) is mentioned hunderds of times in the Bible. EL was an ancient God of Syria and the middle east altogether. He was married to Asherah and their sons were Hadad,Mot,Yam, and Jehova, among others. An inscription of EL is carved on a knife carbon dated to 3200BCE. EL has been around alot longer than the Bible or Jesus.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

God' Word???

I need more than that to work upon...

You expect me to blindly follow someone? No thank you, sir.

You don't have to start by following him, you can ask him to reveal himself to you. If he answers then you can decide whether you want to follow him. There's a mountain of evidence to support the NT's veracity whether people want to acknowledge it or not. Using the accepted methods for determining the veracity of ancient document's the NT is revealed to be authentic. People will argue such bold claims require more than accepted methods to warrant a commitment of this nature.

1.There are sources outside the NT confirming Jesus' existence
2.More ancient copies exist of NT than of any other document
3.There is less gap ( about 150 years) between the events of NT and the first surviving copies than in any other historical document.
4.Authorship is dated generally about 40 years after crucifiction but still in the lifetime of eyewitnesses.
5.Multiple sources (Matt, Mark, Luke, John) telling the same story.
6. Gospels contain the flaws and things that it's actors might find embarrasing.
7. 11 of his disciples were willing to die for their beliefs that he had died and risen from the dead.

 

[earlwooters]

The gospel of Mark, considered by most Christian scholars to be the oldest gospel, did not contain the virgin birth or the resurrection in its original form. The resurrection endings added later, more than four altogether were added in different forms to different bibles. The gospel of John is entirely different than the other three chosen by the Catholic church to be included in the Bible. Evidently the authors of Mark, Luke, and Mathew did not consider the raising of Lazarus from the dead important enough to be included in their own gospels. Mathew and Luke contain about 75% of the gospel of Mark, so it's easy to see where they were coming from. [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The oldest known surviving part of a gospel dates from about 125 CE. It consists of about 50 lines from the Egerton gospel, one of the 40 or so gospels that never made it into the official canon, and whose author is unknown. The Catholic church picked and chose the books that best served their needs, and declared most others heresy. The same church that murdered hundreds of thousands of "heretics" and "unbelievers", and whose priesthood is a sanctuary of gay, pedafile priests. I believe I would have second and third thoughts about believing anything selected and reccomended by the Catholic church.
[/FONT]

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The gospel of Mark, considered by most Christian scholars to be the oldest gospel, did not contain the virgin birth or the resurrection in its original form. The resurrection endings added later, more than four altogether were added in different forms to different bibles. The gospel of John is entirely different than the other three chosen by the Catholic church to be included in the Bible. Evidently the authors of Mark, Luke, and Mathew did not consider the raising of Lazarus from the dead important enough to be included in their own gospels. Mathew and Luke contain about 75% of the gospel of Mark, so it's easy to see where they were coming from. [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The oldest known surviving part of a gospel dates from about 125 CE. It consists of about 50 lines from the Egerton gospel, one of the 40 or so gospels that never made it into the official canon, and whose author is unknown. The Catholic church picked and chose the books that best served their needs, and declared most others heresy. The same church that murdered hundreds of thousands of "heretics" and "unbelievers", and whose priesthood is a sanctuary of gay, pedafile priests. I believe I would have second and third thoughts about believing anything selected and reccomended by the Catholic church.
[/FONT]

Just out of curiosity, what's the name of this Gospel?

And how many lines do you think that the Egerton Gospel has?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The gospel of Mark, considered by most Christian scholars to be the oldest gospel, did not contain the virgin birth or the resurrection in its original form. The resurrection endings added later, more than four altogether were added in different forms to different bibles. The gospel of John is entirely different than the other three chosen by the Catholic church to be included in the Bible. Evidently the authors of Mark, Luke, and Mathew did not consider the raising of Lazarus from the dead important enough to be included in their own gospels. Mathew and Luke contain about 75% of the gospel of Mark, so it's easy to see where they were coming from. [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The oldest known surviving part of a gospel dates from about 125 CE. It consists of about 50 lines from the Egerton gospel, one of the 40 or so gospels that never made it into the official canon, and whose author is unknown. The Catholic church picked and chose the books that best served their needs, and declared most others heresy. The same church that murdered hundreds of thousands of "heretics" and "unbelievers", and whose priesthood is a sanctuary of gay, pedafile priests. I believe I would have second and third thoughts about believing anything selected and reccomended by the Catholic church.
[/FONT]

Originally the gospel of Mark ended at 16v8.
The rest was added on.
The style of writing changes after verse 8
Unlike the rest of Mark there are no corresponding reference verses after verse 8.
The Vatican 1209 and the Sinaitic omit the verses after verse 8
Jerome and Eusebius both believed Mark 16 ended at verse 8

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Different bibles have different numbers of books. The number of authors is at best a guess. There were hundreds of Jewish and Christian books floating around between 60 and 120 ce. God did not decide which books were to be included in the Bible and which were not. The Catholic church decided this. Many of the books of the old testament are remakes of older written stories from a far earlier period from a very different culture. The Epic Of Gilgamesh is the most known. Also the deity EL, "Elohim" (plural) is mentioned hunderds of times in the Bible. EL was an ancient God of Syria and the middle east altogether. He was married to Asherah and their sons were Hadad,Mot,Yam, and Jehova, among others. An inscription of EL is carved on a knife carbon dated to 3200BCE. EL has been around alot longer than the Bible or Jesus.

Adam was around a lot longer before the Bible or Jesus.
Nothing perishable survived the Flood of Noah's day.
But non-perishable artifacts survived.
Noah's great grandson Nimrod was the first king to set himself up to be worshipped at Babel before the start of Bible writing or Jesus.


Did the Catholic church decide or merely testify ?
The writings of the first century were regarded as reliable.
Ancient manuscripts support Bible canon.
The apocryphal books exclude themselves.
So canon was established early on the stage, so the church did not have to establish but merely testify to what was already accepted as the Word of God.
In other words, I think the church merely recognized which books where already considered the authoritative Word from God.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Just out of curiosity, what's the name of this Gospel?

And how many lines do you think that the Egerton Gospel has?

Damn. I was hoping for an answer.

 

[earlwooters]

That is the name. The Egerton Gospel. It consists only of fragments, although some of the text does not match any other Gospel in the Bible. leading some historians to believe it was part of an older, now lost book. The gospel of Thomas is mentioned in many early texts, but was left out of the Bible. The Shepherd of Hermas was found in many early orthodox Bibles. One of the oldest Christian Churches, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes the Book Of Enoch, and always has. The Nag Hammadi library is filled with books that didn't make it into the Bible. They did not support the views of the Catholic Church, so they were left out and declared heretical. They were probably buried to preserve them from being destroyed by the Church. Whoever buried them thought alot of them, to take the care they did to preserve them. It worked. We have them now, for what it's worth.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The oldest known surviving part of a gospel dates from about 125 CE. It consists of about 50 lines from the Egerton gospel, one of the 40 or so gospels that never made it into the official canon, and whose author is unknown. The Catholic church picked and chose the books that best served their needs, and declared most others heresy.

I'm trying to understand the relevance.

If one were to accept the Wikipedia entry ...

The Egerton Gospel (British Library Egerton Papyrus 2) refers to a group of papyrus fragments of a codex of a previously unknown gospel, found in Egypt and sold to the British Museum in 1934; the physical fragments are now dated to the very end of the 2nd century AD, although the date of composition is less clear - perhaps 50-100 AD. It is one of the oldest known fragments of any gospel, or any codex.

... your first sentence is just sloppy while the latter two have little to do with one another, so we're left with little more than sloppy innuendo. It fits well with the rant which follows, but seems to serve no other purpose.

BTW: how've you been, angellous?