The reliability of the Bible?

Question

Well the bible does have some historical evidence, but so does the Da Vinci Code. I've always grown up in a Christian family and my parents always tell me to read the Bible, does anyone have any hard core proof of the accuracy of the Bible?

Answer 1

Old Testament
How do we know the Bible has been kept in tact for over 2,000 years of copying? Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, our earliest Hebrew copy of the Old Testament was the Masoretic text, dating around 800 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls date to the time of Jesus and were copied by the Qumran community, a Jewish sect living around the Dead Sea. We also have the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament dating in the second century B.C. When we compare these texts which have an 800-1000 years gap between them we are amazed that 95% of the texts are identical with only minor variations and a few discrepancies.

New Testament
In considering the New Testament we have tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in part or in whole, dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century, when the printing press was invented. These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, making collusion unlikely. The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript, has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed in Asia Minor). Many early Christian papyri, discovered in 1935, have been dated to 150 A.D., and include the four gospels. The Papyrus Bodmer II, discovered in 1956, has been dated to 200 A.D., and contains 14 chapters and portions of the last seven chapters of the gospel of John. The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, discovered in 1931, has been dated to 200-250 A.D. and contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation. The number of manuscripts is extensive compared to other ancient historical writings, such as Caesar's "Gallic Wars" (10 Greek manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), the "Annals" of Tacitus (2 manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), Livy (20 manuscripts, the earliest 350 years after the original), and Plato (7 manuscripts).

Thousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries (first and second century) cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is nearly possible to put together the entire New Testament just from early Christian writings. For example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (dated 95 A.D.) cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. The letters of Ignatius (dated 115 A.D.) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D. In addition, there is internal evidence for a first century date for the writing of the New Testament. The book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul in prison, awaiting trial (Acts 28:30-31 (1)). It is likely that Luke wrote Acts during this time, before Paul finally appeared before Nero. This would be about 62-63 A.D., meaning that Acts and Luke were written within thirty years of ministry and death of Jesus. Another internal evidence is that there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Although Matthew, Mark and Luke record Jesus' prophecy that the temple and city would be destroyed within that generation (Matthew 24:1-2 (2),Mark 13:1-2 (3), Luke 21:5-9,20-24,32(4)), no New Testament book refers to this event as having happened. If they had been written after 70 A.D., it is likely that letters written after 70 A.D. would have mentioned the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. As stated by Nelson Glueck, former president of the Jewish Theological Seminary in the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, and renowned Jewish archaeologist, "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D."

With all of the massive manuscript evidence you would think there would be massive discrepancies - just the opposite is true. New Testament manuscripts agree in 99.5% of the text (compared to only 95% for the Iliad). Most of the discrepancies are in spelling and word order. A few words have been changed or added. There are two passages that are disputed but no discrepancy is of any doctrinal significance (i.e., none would alter basic Christian doctrine). Most Bibles include the options as footnotes when there are discrepancies. How could there be such accuracy over a period of 1,400 years of copying? Two reasons: The scribes that did the copying had meticulous methods for checking their copies for errors. 2) The Holy Spirit made sure we would have an accurate copy of God's word so we would not be deceived. The Mormons, theological liberals as well as other cults and false religions such as Islam that claim the Bible has been tampered with are completely proven false by the extensive, historical manuscript evidence.

Answer 2

Great question. Sorry for the long answer in advance - but I only covered it in brief despite the lengthiness of my reply - this has been a heated debate for a very very very long time... so:

There have been various archaeological expeditions over the centuries and there is certainly circumstantial evidence that some of the stories are true.

As time has passed evidence of cities and structures that match biblical description have come to light, providing some confirmation of the bibles historical value. However, there is no certain proof possible of the various miracles extent within the text.

From an historical standpoint, it is best to consider the bible as a compilation of mythological stories. The old testament is laden with epic heroes and villains, whilst the new testament is primarily a story about the hero Jesus.

Like the bible, there is archaeological evidence that supports many of the Greek myths, as well as others. In other words, the demonstrated factual nature of some elements of mythology reinforce the probable accuracy of elements of the bible.

From a philosophical standpoint, the bible retains value regardless of its historical accuracy. In particular, the basic message taught by the 'character' of Jesus Chris (who as an aside is probably a real historical figure, although probably not named exactly Jesus Christ... there's some pretty substantial documentation on his existence). Love one another, or to paraphrase what we're taught as children, be nice!

That is an invaluable message, that if taken to heart would bring peace on earth, and perhaps even some kind of an earthly paradise.

Oh, and please disregard anyone who posits the question "Can you prove that the bible is false?" in reply, or in claiming the bible is true. Its an invalid argument, as in science you cannot empirically prove a negative. Basic part of the scientific method...

I would suggest doing some checking with some of the archeology sites and programs on the subject, though I don't recall names of articles or programs, I've seen quite a number in the last few years investigating evidence of the validity of the bible.

-dh

Answer 3

About the Da Vinci Code, I’m just going to say, don’t take it so seriously…

About the Bible this is what I’m going to share with you: Lets say God Himself said and inspired eeeevery single thing the Bible says and instructed men to write his Word.

What can I say about the Bible’s accuracy??

One thing we can say for sure is that it was written by men, right?; therefore human subjectivity is a big possibility. Just ask 3 persons to stare at the SAME tree and ask them What does it mean to them?…One can say: “Nice tree!”, the other one may say: “That tree is ugly and irregular, don’t like the leafs either” and another person can say: “That tree is a symbol of life, is mother earth speaking through a living entity to remind us the precious gift of life!”. Human subjectivity then probably affects the Bible…

Also, each organized religion makes money, for whatever purposes right? So lets think of religion as a business for a second. If you have a big company wouldn’t you keep some information confidential?. There are lots of things the president of a company shouldn’t tell his employees of course and with all the more reason to their customers…is it impossible to believe that over the centuries maybe the churches have edited, excluded or included information from/to the Bible?

Just think about those 2 things….and if you want to add other elements think about how much is lost in translation, or how many apocryphal chapters are not accepted as real, or how the image of God changes constantly between chapters (from forgiving loving father to almighty punisher….)

I believe in God my creator and in Jesus but not in the Bible (the few parts of the Bible that I believe, are the parts in which you can actually see the love, simplicity and humility of Jesus kind words, for me that’s less than 2 pages in the complete Bible...I believe that and some historical facts)

Answer 4

Yes. The bible is 100% the world of God and your parents are right. The Da Vinci Code is 100% the work of Satan the Devil, the man slayer, the original serpent, the originator of the lie and the father of the lie, the prince of darkness. The bible has been around longer than any other book and will continue to be the only authority to true Christians. All these other works will come and be forgotten, but Satan will not give up. He will creep into the minds of unbelievers and cause them to come up with lies in the hope that he may mislead some and cause their ultimate destruction...KECK

Answer 5

According to "conspiracy theorist" David Icke, in his book *The Biggest Secret," ( his source, *The True Authorship of the New Testament, by Abelard Reuchilin), the New Testament was written by Roman aristocrat Calpurnius Piso and others of his family between 70CE and105CE, with some help from the Roman writer and statesman Pliny the Younger. Most of the characters and incidents seem to have been drawn from the older "Pagan" religions. If this is true (he makes a good case) it's a beautiful and inspirational myth, reliability may be an irrelevant concept.

Answer 6

I don't recall from when I used to study the tome . but I'm sure as the sun will shine tommorow that you can find many links on your serarch engine . paint me the skeptic even though i'm going back to search concider the fact that first you had uneducated fish mongers with vested interests painting the first views after the fact and then countless others re writing it down through the ages to present ,gad zukes most people dislike to have to trust the chain of evidence to the court rm. for fear of tampering .
so check your search engines and you decide .
I was taught that the infallibility when the pope decided what books to use also included burning those left over that they found
not to go along .Seems like another suspicious act of
contrivance.look fo contradictions and other blunders the so called word of god should have rendered not .Anyway u might give this a glance:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/bible-contradictions.html

Answer 7

Hard core proof? I'm Christian, but don't have any 'hard core' proof the Bible is true. For me, it makes sense, so I follow it. It might not be the same for everybody. For one person, the Bible, another person the Qur'an, another person the Torah, another person another holy book. Some might make the claim that prophecy proves the Bible, and this is sort of right, although some prophecies rely on inevitability of certain events happening.

Answer 8

The books of the Old Testament were written from approximately 1400 B.C. to 400 B.C. The books of the New Testament were written from approximately A.D. 40 to A.D. 90. So, anywhere between 3400 to 1900 years have passed since a book of the Bible was originally written. In this time, the original manuscripts have been lost. They very likely no longer exist. Also in this time, the books of the Bible have been copied again and again. Copies of copies of copies have been made. In view of all of this, can we still trust the Bible?



When God originally inspired men to write His Word, it was God-breathed and inerrant (2 Timothy 3:16-17; John 17:17). The Bible nowhere applies this to copies of the original manuscripts. As meticulous as scribes were with the replication of the Scriptures, no one is perfect. As a result, minor differences arose in the various copies of the Scriptures. Of all of the thousands of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that are in existence, no two were identical until the printing press was invented in the 1500s A.D.



However, any unbiased document scholar will agree that the Bible has been remarkably preserved over the centuries. Copies of the Bible dating to the 14th century A.D. are nearly identical in content to copies from the 3rd century A.D. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, scholars were shocked at how similar they were to other ancient copies of the Old Testament – even though the Dead Sea Scrolls were hundreds of years older than anything previously discovered. Even many hardened skeptics and critics of the Bible admit that the Bible has been transmitted over the centuries far more accurately than any other ancient document.



There is absolutely no evidence that the Bible has been revised, edited, or tampered with in any systematic manner. The sheer volume of Biblical manuscripts makes it simple to recognize any attempts to distort God’s Word. There is no major doctrine of the Bible that is put in doubt as a result of the minor differences that exist between manuscripts.



Again, the question, can we trust the Bible? Absolutely! God has preserved His Word despite the unintentional failings and intentional attacks of human beings. We can have utmost confidence that the Bible we have today is the same Bible that was originally written. The Bible is God’s Word, and we can trust it (2 Timothy 3:16; Matthew 5:18).

Answer 9

You have to take into account many factors. One being that it was written by PEOPLE. No one can prove they were guided by God. Personally, if God wanted to say something, you'd think he'd write it himself.

But I digress. People are predictable. They are going to write down amazing things that happened to them, but they are almost guaranteed to manipulate power in order to spread their opinion, whether their cause is noble or not. In the grand scheme of things, people cannot be trusted with power. Writing a book of god is power.

There are probably many stories in the bible that are true. There are probably even more that are false.

Something else you have to take into account is that it is a FACT that one, and only one, man chose the books of the bible. One man sat down with all th books and chose which ones to canonize. Did you know that guy? I sure don't. So who gave him the right? No one that we can prove.

You should check out the History Channel's research into proof of the bible. It's a fascinating series packed with LOTS of proof and disproof. They did a fantastic job.

Answer 10

Archaeology as the one lady said. (hanging gardens, irrigation, city location)
Prophecy in Daniel pointing to alexander the great is remarkable.
names of rulers of rome / persians/ eygpt.

Even creation - If you look at day by day - it goes from big bang, to ignition of the sun, to life on earth evolving in the same way Darwinists claim.

add it all up and you see it is inspired by God.
Why would god give us a book 1/2 right that is proven, and the other 1/2 wrong? God doesn't work like that