Proving the Bible

So this is essentially a case for the Bible to prove (or at least give some hardy evidence) that the Bible is truly what it says it is. Feel free to comment with questions or otherwise! Thanks.

8Likes
10Comments
888Views
AA

2. II. Textual Criticism and Compatible History

                The Bible thus can be proven materialistically through that of ancient manuscript support with the help of textual criticism. In writing the Bible, the original copies known as the autographs were lost in the process; however, springing from these autographs came multiple copies in which textual critics can now use collectively to reach a general consensus to come as closely as possible to the original text. This is their ultimate goal. While it is factual that the New Testament contains more variations than there are words in the New Testament, the majority of these are not even viable or meaningful. For example, there are sixteen different ways to say ‘I love you’ within the Greek language alone (each one counting for a technical textual variance). Furthermore, since the New Testament used Koine Greek, the language of everyday people, variations through vernacular would also appear. As such, any use of these counts as a textual variation; though, what happens when the change is meaningful and viable? It is true that the Bible contains these too, but within the entire Bible only approximately one percent of these changes [could] exist; and these do not change the faith of Christianity enough to create a brand new religion. It has simply remained the same since its birth back before the approximated date of 2100 B.C.

                Today and all in all, we have come to a large amassed group of these manuscripts to retain all this information. For just the New Testament alone, there are roughly 20,500 manuscripts of various languages including Latin, Koine Greek and various others. Now the Old Testament contains approximately 14,000 manuscripts, some of which predate the birth of Christ. The Dead Sea Scrolls, found in the 1940’s, is widely notorious for boasting of a large collection of Old Testament books all of which occurred before 4 B.C. (the historically accepted date of Jesus’ birth). However, most interesting in these scrolls was the findings of parts of Isaiah, a book in which it actually prophesizes the birth of Christ, proving that the prophecies were truly written before the historic event. Now what of the New Testament? For the New Testament, the autographs were estimated to be written as early as 45 A.D. and were written by eyewitnesses of Christ. In fact, one of the most important things historians look for is that very concept: was it recorded by eyewitnesses or were the people recording it based on other stories? As of today, the oldest copies recovered for the New Testament would be the p52 Rylands which date to 125 A.D. This is just one generation of copying which henceforth leads to fewer human errors to be passed down through the copying process.

                So what does all of this mean? By its very nature the fact is, the Bible is proven to be more reliable than many other histories used in your very own school textbooks. It has been proven time and time again through accounts that match up with varying ancient civilizations through archaeology. Sometimes archaeological findings even go as far as to describe how things happened. For instance, it is proven that Sodom and Gomorrah were indeed burned to a torch as described in Genesis of the Bible. One thing that can’t be misinterpreted here is that the Bible is true because it says it is true and records events that no other nation does. Additionally, a lack of evidence isn’t necessarily evidence of a fallacy. This is, on the contrary, entirely false as the Bible records history as well as the nations in which it encountered (primarily in the Old Testament). For instance, under the Egyptian pharaoh of Thutmose III, there are numerous hieroglyphics which detail a retreat as mentioned in Exodus. While it does not mention specifically Israelites in the hieroglyphics or even the name of the Egyptian pharaoh in the Old Testament, they are complementary details to each other. However, the history of the Israelites is also reflected by their fall to the Assyrians and even that of the Chaldeans where they suffered from the Babylonian Captivity. The history of the Assyrians and the Chaldeans also confirm the history as recorded in the Old Testament as direct complements each sharing a part in history.

Join MovellasFind out what all the buzz is about. Join now to start sharing your creativity and passion
Loading ...