How Is The Old Testament Reliable

The readings in chapter seven on how the Bible cannot be trusted historically or culturally. Historically speaking it cannot be trusted because it is filled with an unreliable collection of legends and no more than 20 percent of the things that are quoted by jesus are valid.The Bible cannot be trusted culturally because universalizing time any more than the culture is already universalized and looking at the Bible as regressed and seeing it as that would make seem as if the Bible is rejected. Intermission talks about the split between eastern and western churches that later became Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches which occurred in the eleventh century. Christians believe the creation, fall, and redemption are what make sense in

Bruce makes it clear that this volume is dedicated to Christian students throughout the world. However, in the “Preface to the Fifth Edition,” he sets the tone by identifying the target audience for his work: “non-theological students” who are studying the New Testament documents, and who are more inclined to tolerate a source which has historical relevance as opposed to a source that does not (xiv). Thus, Bruce sets out with the goal of melding theology and history in an attempt at answering the question posed in the title, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Bruce uses 124 pages and 10 chapters in an attempt to prove that the New Testament documents are reliable. He provides ample

126). Next, Strobel writes about his interview with Bruce Metzger concerning the reliability of the text in the New Testament. Since the original books of the New Testament was lost, how do we know that the copied text is identical to the memo? According to Metzger, "the more often you have copies that agree with each other, especially if they emerge from different geographical areas, the more you can cross-check them to figure out what the original document was like" (p. 76). Also, Strobel asked Metzger why some books weren’t included in the New Testament and his response was that the church did want to portray such pictures of Jesus in the canon, that the church only wanted the New Testament to contain only the best historical stories of Jesus. The next scholar interviewed was Edwin Yamauchi. He was asked about additional biblical proof that confirms the New Testament but he was not very convincing. The question for Strobel’s fourth interview was whether archeology increased or decreased the New Testaments reliability. Three New Testament statements are entirely unsupported by archaeology. First, the three hours of worldwide darkness during the crucifixion (Mark 15:33). Second, the resurrection of the saints, and their following appearance to many in Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52-53). Finally third, Jesus ' burial in the tomb.

Evidence for OT and NT canonicity and tests for canonicity are for the OT canonicity is seen in “the Law” originating from the Old Testament in Law of Moses is seen as being “authoritative”. Examples of scripture that supports this are “1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6 and Ezra 6:18”. These writings help justify the first five books of the Old Testament that Moses contributed in writing. Second “from the prophets” is another example of evidence seen where the prophets were inspired with the word from God. The gospels of Joshua, Chronicles, and Daniels are examples of supportive books in the gospel. Third example is “from Malachi 4:5” where the prophecy ends with Malachi and resumes with John the Baptist. Evidence for the NT is “quotations of the old testament to the new”, which shows “250 quotes from the old testament” being used. Second, “Matthew 5:17” shows the Law and the Prophets holding power as spoken by the Lord. Third, “Luke 11:51” the condemnation of Jewish leaders for murdering the Lord's messengers throughout time. The tests for canonicity are first “the test for authority” where the books of the canon were backed up by an authoritative prophet or apostle. Second, “the test for uniqueness” where evidence had to be unique to be placed in the canon. Third, “the test of acceptance by the churches”, where the books had to gain acceptance by the

The two gospels, The Old Testament and The New Testament provide mirror images of Terrestrial Humans mentality Evolution and the comprehensive overview of the mental developmental trends over a span covering last five millennia. The Old Testament moral norms served in establishing a legal system with base in an absolute, irrevocable right of private ownership. Incontestable proof of continuous process of Evolution in this micro-segment of Spiral is an emergence of ‘The New Testament’, as a herald of a new mental era on the Earth, which naturally succeeds ‘The Old Testament’. Needless to remind, that The Old Testament also inspired adherents to vehemently follow the principle "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth", a total ‘defence of ownership’ “…based on the superstition or the illusion that one was ‘God 's chosen people’ and was superior to all ‘heathens’ ". (Quote from ‘Livets Bog’, Vol IV #1310)

Second: to offer that the Bible is true is to say that we can faith in its content; we believe it to be guide to our faith. We would have to embrace the notion that there are specific assertions about Gods faithfulness and how we should live our lives and reciprocate. These contentions may appear somewhat intricate, but recognizing its intricacies is a way not of evading commitment to the Bible 's truth however of fully addressing to the complex ways in which the Bible is true. Let’s contemplate the rapport between truth and meaning: the truth of a testimonial or a book hinges on what it means. Countless biblical scholars have worked for eons to scrutinize and appraise the text of the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, and the New Testament.

There is much debate over the accuracy and the inerrancy of Scripture. Pertaining to this debate there exists an underlying question as to whether or not the New Testament is considered part of the canon or for that matter if it is actually given by the inspiration of God. How did the books that are in the New Testament get there? Who decided which books should be added or taken out? Do we have all the books that we should have? Many ask these questions, but Christians are ill equipped to give an answer. For centuries, Christians have claimed that they have the absolute truth, are saved only by faith, and claim the Scriptures as inspired by God. In spite of these

Questions about the authenticity of the Holy Bible have been interrogated since the first circulation of the Word. Nonbelievers dispute the entirety of the actuality of the Holy Bible. While skeptical believers along with some nonbelievers question the accuracy of recorded events within the Holy Bible, specifically the Gospels. Individuals debate the issue if the Gospels are historically reliable, claiming there is no tangible evidence and the books contradict themselves. Mark D. Roberts, in his book, Can we Trust the Gospels? was able to provide reliable evidence and reasons on why people can trust the Gospels. His book gives an overview on the subject of the gospel reliability and trustworthiness.

Many scholars claim the New Testament is not reliable for many reasons. Some claim that the Bible is not reliably transmitted because it's like the telephone game. Others say that the Bible has been copied so many times there is no way it's accurate. When examining documents like the Bible, we can find out it's reliability by asking some fundamental questions. Was the document written close to the events it describes? Is the document able to be corroborated by multiple external sources? Has the document been reliably transmitted or copied? If we answer yes to these questions, we determine the document is reliable.

The historical accuracy of the Bible: The Bible is the most accurate of ancient writings. There are 25,000 archaeological findings that back it up. There are nearly 25,000 manuscripts and portions of manuscripts that attest to its accuracy. There are several writings by scholars, who lived during the times of Jesus but were not followers of Christ supporting the biblical story of Jesus.

The Christian Bible consists of all the Jewish Hebrew texts but they are arranged in a different manner so it makes a total of 39 books that are together known as the ‘old testament’. The Christian New Testament consists of 27 books that contain early Christian writings (Hayes 3). The Protestants count a total of 39 books, Catholics 46 while the Orthodox Christians count up to 53 books as part of their Holy Bible (Just). For Christians, the New Testament takes precedence over the Old Testament (read Hebrew text) and they use the reading of the New Testament to confirm the text of the Old Testament. For Jews however the Hebrew text is the supreme scripture and they rely on it fully for their religious understanding (Gravett, Bohmbach, Greifenhagen

The fourth valid criterion is indifference. This principle states “material is more likely to be deemed historically reliable if its contents would have been a matter of relative indifference to the author of the source in which it is found.” A good example of this is found in Mark 6:3 when Jesus was identified to be a carpenter. This statement by the author of Mark’s Gospel is simply informative as a matter of indifference and does not appear to be particularly relevant in terms of theology. This method is also productive at excluding material. There are numerous contradictions found throughout the New Testament that could have been introduced in order to serve the purpose of the author. For instance, the books of Acts and Mark are quoted

I have not yet been confronted with the question, “Is the Bible trustworthy?”, but if someone asks me this question, I will reply yes, there is ample proof that the events in the Bible actually did happen. For example, archeology agrees with Scripture. Archeologists have found numerous Biblical items, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, chariot wheels in the Red Sea, stone inscriptions, and many other evidences that prove the Bible. Although the exact site has not been located yet, kings from surrounding nations documented Solomon’s golden kingdom in writing. A stone memorial that tells of a conflict between Moab and Israel presented in 2 Kings 3. In all, archaeology confirms the biblical accounts in more than 25,000 sites connected to biblical history.

When reading the Gospel, I got a better understanding for who Jesus was and why many people followed Him, although it did not alter my view point much. This experience helped me gain knowledge on all accounts of Jesus’ life, rather than just reading one story about him. Although I found many stories hard to believe, as many people would, there is historical evidence to back up many accounts of Jesus’ life. For example, they “have more than 2,000 copies in Coptic and over 4,000 in Slavic languages” (Made for More 36). That amount of data, all very similar in information, is a lot to compare. If almost all of the copies have similar parts and stories, then they have to be at least somewhat true. Furthermore, there are “highly unflattering details about the apostles” in the bible. If the gospels were truly just trying to make Jesus look good, then why would they share unadmirable things about the people closest to Him. After reading the entire gospel, there are a few things I have questions about. Why did Jesus want some things kept a secret if He is honest about everything? Why did Jesus not want the people to touch Him? Why did He only speak in metaphors and

This topic has been studied on for a long period of time already. Thus, resulting to a lot of articles on the internet or in books that prove that the Bible really is reliable. Despite it being about thousands and thousands of years old, it is still consistent and very up to date.