|
MrMister -> RE: End of Days. (5/15/2006 2:17:11 PM)
|
Ron, I can surely relate to what it is you are saying and will definitely state that trying to get across ideas, views, beliefs, etc such as these are almost next to impossible to do within the confines of a forum such as this. But it does matter whether or not Jesus of Nazareth truly lived, died, and rose from the dead. If the Gospel re cord about Jesus is nothing more than a curious myth, then Christianity is a fraudulent religion that has deceived countless billions of faithful souls over the last two thousand years. If Jesus did not rise triumphantly from the empty tomb, then our hope of salvation is nothing more than a dream based on the greatest lie in history. Thus the very importance of seeking and learning as much as we possibly can about the very validity of these claims. So I will try nonetheless to better clarify why I believe in the following by listing a few examples of my previous findings, But please note this is certainly not a definitive list of what I found along my path of discovery.
(1) textural transmission (the accuracy of the copying process down through history)
This is of doubtful truth. Some of the editing was done in order to more closely align the book with catholic desires, I will point to the 'lost books' and leave it there.
What I was referring to specifically is the accuracy of the copying process down through the ages. As with any other literature of antiquity, we do not have the original documents. But the accuracy of the Hebrew copyists is astonishing when comparing the scriptures to other literature of antiquity. Some of the things that I stumbled upon are the phenomenon of divergence and change that is common amongst manuscripts produced centuries apart, i.e., The Egypt Book of the Dead, where as the variations are serious in nature, as well as whole clauses are left out or inserted, and in the sense of corresponding columns of text is in some cases altogether different. Aside from divine superintendence of the transmission process of the Hebrew text, there is no particular reason why the same phenomenon of divergence and change would not appear between Hebrew manuscripts produced centuries apart. For example (and one example only), even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in the Qumaran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling. They do not affect the message of the revelation in the slightest.
Furthermore, regarding the New Testament we have vast numbers (approximately 25,000) of ancient manuscripts to confirm the validity of the original text.
(2) the conformation of the Old and New Testament by hard evidence uncovered through archaeology
Such as the what? Let us start with the wandering for 40 years, no evidence that they (the tribes) were other than local Caananites. No such mass exodus was recorded of Jews from Egypt.
I must reiterate that I am no scholar, nor do I even consider myself to be the sharpest crayon in the box, so I don’t have an answer to whether or not there is any documentation or other proof regarding the Exodus. I will, however, do some research. But what I do know is that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single properly understood biblical statement. But one thing to keep in mind is this; Even though archaeology has never contradicted the Bible, all too often we hear the statement “Archaeology proves the Bible.” Archaeology cannot “prove” the Bible, if by this one means, “proves it to be inspired and revealed by God.” But if by “prove” one means, “shows some biblical event or passage or passage to be historical,” then archaeology does prove the Bible.
I will list a few things and you (or anyone else can look them up of your own accords:
A) The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
B) The ancient city of Jericho and it’s fortification and siege
C) The Pool of Bethesda
D) Gabbatha – The court where Jesus was tried
E) The Nazareth Decree
F) The Pilate Inscription
G) The Erastus Inscription
H) New Testament coins
I) Yohanan Ben Ha’galgol – a crucifixion victim
J) Tomb of Caiaphas the High Priest
(3) documentary evidence also uncovered through archaeology
12,000 monkeys.......some things being agreed does not mean the whole shebang is true.
Not exactly sure what you are referring to here with the 12,000-monkey thing. But I do remember the quote that given enough monkeys and enough typewriters, and when put together all in one room, eventually one will type something legible.
In all seriousness, what I was referring to was something along the lines of the Dead Sea scrolls and other ancient manuscripts, as well as Roman Government historical archives, and various other writers such as Livy and Seneca as well as the Jewish historian Flavious Josephus. These are just a few.
(4) the internal evidence test of the New Testament
Explain the two begats chapters in (I think) Matt and Mark.....how do you account for the differences in geneology?
The New Testament books that list genealogy are Matthew and Luke. Matthew traced the genealogy back to Abraham, while Luke traced it back to Adam. Mathew wrote to the Jews, so Jesus was shown as a descendent of their father, Abraham.
Luke wrote to the Gentiles, so he emphasized Jesus as the Savior of all people.
(5) the external evidence test of the New Testament.
What external evidence might that be? Israel exists, therefore the kingdom of God.
Norway exists, therefore Asgaard and Vallhalla (a more convincing sort of argument, in my mind)
An external evidence test for the reliability of the New Testament is - Do other historical materials confirm or deny the internal testimony provided by the documents themselves? Supporting evidence of early Christian writers outside the Bible are: Eusebius, Papias, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, James (the brother of Jesus),Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Emperor Trajan, Talmud, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion, and I’m sure there are others that I’m just not remembering or I simply don’t know of.
Also look at the incredible accuracy of Luke. Luke’s reliability as an historian is unquestionable and archaeology has authenticated the Gospel account laid out in The Book of Luke and in Acts.
Not to mention the transformed lives of the writers of the Bible and the unprecedented influence of Jesus Christ on the lives of individuals, Western culture, and the history of the world.
|
|
|
|
