Ok, so now that I've given some evidence for the accuracy of the Old Testament, I'm going to do the same thing for the New Testament. So here's some bibliographic evidence, internal evidence, and external evidence.
Bibliographic - There are way more copies of the New Testament than any other ancient manuscript. There are around 25,000 copies. The manuscript with the second highest number of copies is Homer's Iliad. Guess how many copies (it doesn't come even close). Only 643, compared to the New Testament's 25,000. The firsts copies are also closer than any other document. The earliest copy is within 50 yrs, and the earliest complete copy of the New Testament is within 225 years. Other texts don't have copies for at least 400 years--most are over 1,000 years for the first copy.
Internal - There are no known contradictions. If something doesn't match up, there has been, so far, an explanation for it. And, just because it hasn't been explained yet, doesn't mean that it won't be explained eventually. For example it appears that the accounts of Judas' death as told in Matthew contradicts that of Acts. Matthew says that Judas hung himself, and Acts says that Judas fell in a field and his body burst open. Now, the only way that this could happen is if Judas hung himself above a field to fall in to. Sure enough, the site that is considered to be where Judas died is a field beside a cliff.
External - Many other writers from the time of Christ confirm the truth of the gospels (I had some great quotes from New Evidence that Demands a Verdict--but, I don't have the book with me.) Josephus is a good example of another writer confirming events in the gospels. Several times he refers to writings in the New Testament.
Hope that helps. If you have any questions please leave a comment!
Never surrender!
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Why the Old Testament is reliable
So, why is the Old Testament reliable? I'll show some bibliographic evidence, internal evidence, and external evidence.
Bibliographic Evidence - Because of how many years the documents would have had to survive, there aren't as many copies of the Old Testament as there are of the New Testament. But, throughout the years these copies are 95% the same. And these 5% of differences are because of typos and slight spelling variations--none of the meaning of a text is changed. Compare that to the Egyptian Book of the Dead. There are hardly any copies of this text and there are major differences between copies as well--the meaning of certain passages is totally changed. Also, there are the Dead Sea Scrolls. These are a thousand years older than the previous oldest copy of the Old Testament and still they are accurate.
Internal Evidence - If something is found in the Bible that is a contradiction then it cannot be true. Although there can be statements that appear to contradict, there is always an explanation (even if we have not found it yet). For example, Proverbs 26:4 says "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him." While Proverbs 26:5 says, "Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes." These statements appear to contradict. But, do they really? Verse 4 says do not answer a fool in the same way and look like a fool yourself. Verse 5 says to answer a fool and tell him of his folly so he does not think he is wise. These verses do not contradict each other, but rather compliment each other.
External Evidence (Texts) - The Bible records the names of many foreign kings which, of course, were also recorded in other texts from that time. The amazing thing is that, although I think I read that there were some spelling variations, these names were essentially accurate. Compare that to the records of Manetho the High Priest (of something?). He recorded the names of the kings of various Egyptian dynasties. But, when these records are compared to other records of these same kings it is found that less than half of his names can be confirmed.
External Evidence (Archaeological) - There is new evidence being found all the time, but here are some examples. There are ruins of cities and indication of commerce where the Bible records the location of Sodom and Gomorrah. The interesting thing about that is there is also evidence of an earthquake that wiped out the cities. At the ruins of Jericho the walls appear to have fallen outward instead of inward. And probably the most intriguing--to me at least--is that the Bible claims that when Saul died his armor was kept in the Canaanite temple of Ashtaroth and his head was kept in the Philistine temple of Dagon. Skeptics said that it was impossible for the temples of two enemies to be in the same location. But, there were two temples discovered that were connected by a hallway. Guess what, one temple was for the Canaanite goddess Ashtaroth, and the other temple at the other end of the hallway was for the Philistine god, Dagon.
There is plenty of other evidence as well--I'm not trying to write a book or anything. If you have any questions, I'll answer them as soon as I can (Barbara, I'll get to yours asap!). Oh, and I really do recommend reading Josh McDowell's book New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. I saw that Amazon has copies for around $7.
Never Surrender!
Bibliographic Evidence - Because of how many years the documents would have had to survive, there aren't as many copies of the Old Testament as there are of the New Testament. But, throughout the years these copies are 95% the same. And these 5% of differences are because of typos and slight spelling variations--none of the meaning of a text is changed. Compare that to the Egyptian Book of the Dead. There are hardly any copies of this text and there are major differences between copies as well--the meaning of certain passages is totally changed. Also, there are the Dead Sea Scrolls. These are a thousand years older than the previous oldest copy of the Old Testament and still they are accurate.
Internal Evidence - If something is found in the Bible that is a contradiction then it cannot be true. Although there can be statements that appear to contradict, there is always an explanation (even if we have not found it yet). For example, Proverbs 26:4 says "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him." While Proverbs 26:5 says, "Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes." These statements appear to contradict. But, do they really? Verse 4 says do not answer a fool in the same way and look like a fool yourself. Verse 5 says to answer a fool and tell him of his folly so he does not think he is wise. These verses do not contradict each other, but rather compliment each other.
External Evidence (Texts) - The Bible records the names of many foreign kings which, of course, were also recorded in other texts from that time. The amazing thing is that, although I think I read that there were some spelling variations, these names were essentially accurate. Compare that to the records of Manetho the High Priest (of something?). He recorded the names of the kings of various Egyptian dynasties. But, when these records are compared to other records of these same kings it is found that less than half of his names can be confirmed.
External Evidence (Archaeological) - There is new evidence being found all the time, but here are some examples. There are ruins of cities and indication of commerce where the Bible records the location of Sodom and Gomorrah. The interesting thing about that is there is also evidence of an earthquake that wiped out the cities. At the ruins of Jericho the walls appear to have fallen outward instead of inward. And probably the most intriguing--to me at least--is that the Bible claims that when Saul died his armor was kept in the Canaanite temple of Ashtaroth and his head was kept in the Philistine temple of Dagon. Skeptics said that it was impossible for the temples of two enemies to be in the same location. But, there were two temples discovered that were connected by a hallway. Guess what, one temple was for the Canaanite goddess Ashtaroth, and the other temple at the other end of the hallway was for the Philistine god, Dagon.
There is plenty of other evidence as well--I'm not trying to write a book or anything. If you have any questions, I'll answer them as soon as I can (Barbara, I'll get to yours asap!). Oh, and I really do recommend reading Josh McDowell's book New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. I saw that Amazon has copies for around $7.
Never Surrender!
But what is truth?
So, if there is absolute truth, what is it? God is truth. And as Christians we find His truth in the Holy Scriptures, aka the Bible. Most Christians just accept the Bible as truth. Why? Well, probably because that's what we were taught in Sunday School. But, what will you say when someone (an atheist most likely) questions your belief in the absolute authority of the Bible? I hope your answer won't be "umm . . . uh . . . I don't know."
Why is the truth of the Bible so important? If the Bible is not true, then Christianity is completely false. It is a lie. I will not dedicate my life to something false. That is why it is so important to know why the whole Bible is true.
If we want to determine if a document is historically accurate, it is run through several tests. It is tested bibliographically--which means that we check to see if there are any inconsistencies in the copies. Then there is the internal evidence test which determines if there are any inconsistencies or contradictions within the text. And lastly we check for external evidence and look at artifacts and other texts from that time.
If you want more information I recommend reading Josh McDowell's New Evidence that Demands a Verdict.
Never Surrender!
Why is the truth of the Bible so important? If the Bible is not true, then Christianity is completely false. It is a lie. I will not dedicate my life to something false. That is why it is so important to know why the whole Bible is true.
If we want to determine if a document is historically accurate, it is run through several tests. It is tested bibliographically--which means that we check to see if there are any inconsistencies in the copies. Then there is the internal evidence test which determines if there are any inconsistencies or contradictions within the text. And lastly we check for external evidence and look at artifacts and other texts from that time.
If you want more information I recommend reading Josh McDowell's New Evidence that Demands a Verdict.
Never Surrender!
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Absolutely Part 3 - How this relates to a Christian
If you haven't already, you should probably read the previous two posts on postmodernism.
So, how does this relate to Christianity? As crazy as it sounds, many Christians unknowingly (or it could be on purpose) incorporate postmodern thinking into their faith. How many times have you been at a Bible study and heard, or said this yourself, "What does this verse mean to you?" How about, "what did the author mean by this verse." I've heard some strange things when people try to interpret scripture without reading the verse in context or thinking of the author's intent. Sometimes the verses can just be slightly off. But, on the other hand, sometimes people can really take scripture out of context and come up with some crazy and dangerous interpretations.
Here are some examples of how Christians can take verses out of context (these aren't all mine--I've heard other people use these):
1. A young Christian man, Mark, is interested in Grace and wants to marry her. So he opens his Bible and randomly reads 2 Corinthians 12:9, "Grace is all you need." So, he thinks the God is speaking to him through that verse telling him to marry Grace. This is an example where the results may not be all that harmful. Grace could be a very nice, Christian young lady. Ok, what if Grace is not a Christian? The Bible makes it very clear that believers are not to marry unbelievers.
2. A Christian woman is in an adulterous relationship and is trying to reconcile that with her beliefs. She randomly picked a Bible verse and reads Colossians 3:10 which says, "put on the new man." She thinks that the Bible is affirming her adulterous relationship. This is an example where the results are extremely harmful. The Bible is very clear that adultery is sinful.
3. Another common one is Philippians 4:13, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." Most people incorrectly think this means we can do anything. Trust me, no matter how hard you pray you can't just go outside and fly because "Christ is strengthening you." The verse is actually talking about persecution. It is really saying that I can endure all hardships with the help and strength of Christ.
4. Here is the worst example I have seen yet. I'm writing a pro-life paper, so I've been researching both the pro-life and the pro-choice (Really? They don't really seem to want there to be a choice . . . ) sides of the argument. One article I found struck me as very interesting because the title was something like "Why the Bible is pro-abortion and anti-children." When I read the article, however, my suspicions were confirmed. The article had at least 20 verses taken out of context to show how the Bible is really anti-children. One verse was Exodus 1:22 "Every boy that is born you must throw into the Nile river." If you read the rest of that passage, it's extremely clear that the speaker is the pharaoh and that particular pharaoh is . . . well, evil. There were many more verses just like this one, and all were taken out of context. This example is particularly harmful. The Bible is clear that murder is wrong.
How can a Christian avoid doing this? Don't ever try to interpret a Bible verse without first knowing who wrote it, who it was written to, and what the context is. This may sound weird, but never read a Bible verse. You should at least read the verse before and after as well. If you just read verses randomly, you'll come up with all sorts of crazy things. Remember what matters is what the author wrote, not what you want to read.
Trust in the Lord and never surrender!
So, how does this relate to Christianity? As crazy as it sounds, many Christians unknowingly (or it could be on purpose) incorporate postmodern thinking into their faith. How many times have you been at a Bible study and heard, or said this yourself, "What does this verse mean to you?" How about, "what did the author mean by this verse." I've heard some strange things when people try to interpret scripture without reading the verse in context or thinking of the author's intent. Sometimes the verses can just be slightly off. But, on the other hand, sometimes people can really take scripture out of context and come up with some crazy and dangerous interpretations.
Here are some examples of how Christians can take verses out of context (these aren't all mine--I've heard other people use these):
1. A young Christian man, Mark, is interested in Grace and wants to marry her. So he opens his Bible and randomly reads 2 Corinthians 12:9, "Grace is all you need." So, he thinks the God is speaking to him through that verse telling him to marry Grace. This is an example where the results may not be all that harmful. Grace could be a very nice, Christian young lady. Ok, what if Grace is not a Christian? The Bible makes it very clear that believers are not to marry unbelievers.
2. A Christian woman is in an adulterous relationship and is trying to reconcile that with her beliefs. She randomly picked a Bible verse and reads Colossians 3:10 which says, "put on the new man." She thinks that the Bible is affirming her adulterous relationship. This is an example where the results are extremely harmful. The Bible is very clear that adultery is sinful.
3. Another common one is Philippians 4:13, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." Most people incorrectly think this means we can do anything. Trust me, no matter how hard you pray you can't just go outside and fly because "Christ is strengthening you." The verse is actually talking about persecution. It is really saying that I can endure all hardships with the help and strength of Christ.
4. Here is the worst example I have seen yet. I'm writing a pro-life paper, so I've been researching both the pro-life and the pro-choice (Really? They don't really seem to want there to be a choice . . . ) sides of the argument. One article I found struck me as very interesting because the title was something like "Why the Bible is pro-abortion and anti-children." When I read the article, however, my suspicions were confirmed. The article had at least 20 verses taken out of context to show how the Bible is really anti-children. One verse was Exodus 1:22 "Every boy that is born you must throw into the Nile river." If you read the rest of that passage, it's extremely clear that the speaker is the pharaoh and that particular pharaoh is . . . well, evil. There were many more verses just like this one, and all were taken out of context. This example is particularly harmful. The Bible is clear that murder is wrong.
How can a Christian avoid doing this? Don't ever try to interpret a Bible verse without first knowing who wrote it, who it was written to, and what the context is. This may sound weird, but never read a Bible verse. You should at least read the verse before and after as well. If you just read verses randomly, you'll come up with all sorts of crazy things. Remember what matters is what the author wrote, not what you want to read.
Trust in the Lord and never surrender!
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Absolutely Part 2 - Text actually does have fixed meaning
Postmodernists claim that relativism not only applies to reality but also to texts as well. Which is funny when you think about it. There are books written that say, "Text has no fixed meaning." Really? Doesn't that strike them as just a bit odd . . .
How should we read text if we believe in absolute truth? Well, we need to know the author's purpose for the text. Never say, "what does this text mean to mean," it should be, "what does the author mean by this text." For example, you could take the quote from the first paragraph where I said, "'Text has no fixed meaning,'" and post it on another website claiming that I am a postmodernist. But, if you read the rest of the paragraph and the rest of the post you'll see that I am most certainly not a postmodernist. And, that's not what I meant by that quote--my purpose in writing that was to show the reader an example of how postmodern thinking contradicts itself.
Be strong in the Lord and never surrender!
How should we read text if we believe in absolute truth? Well, we need to know the author's purpose for the text. Never say, "what does this text mean to mean," it should be, "what does the author mean by this text." For example, you could take the quote from the first paragraph where I said, "'Text has no fixed meaning,'" and post it on another website claiming that I am a postmodernist. But, if you read the rest of the paragraph and the rest of the post you'll see that I am most certainly not a postmodernist. And, that's not what I meant by that quote--my purpose in writing that was to show the reader an example of how postmodern thinking contradicts itself.
Be strong in the Lord and never surrender!
Are you absolutely sure about that . . .
This sentence has no meaning. Wait a second . . . What? Oh my, I'm really confused now . . . Does that mean that it means nothing? Oh wait, it has no meaning so it can't mean that it means nothing. That's not helping . . .
I'm sure you're as confused reading that as I was writing that. You know, because I'm currently attending a secular college I have run into many professors who believe that. Postmodernism is a very popular school of thought today. It sounds nice--you're right, I'm right, we're all right! But, how can completely opposing viewpoints be true? There's no way that all of the conflicting viewpoints in our world today can be true. As much as postmodernists will argue with you, there are several major logical fallacies in their belief system that you should point out to them.
They will say that there is no absolute truth. OK, are you absolutely sure? Is that absolutely true? That statement is self-contradicting. Some will say that there is no absolute truth except for the truth that there is no other absolute truth. Yeah, that doesn't make any sense either. Every time I have told a postmodernist that "there is no universal, absolute truth" is a universal, absolute truth claim, I have never received an satisfactory answer. I know that there are postmodernists who will argue further, but I have not encountered any as of yet. Hopefully I will someday . . .
Also, they claim that you cannot apply your personal moral views to anyone else. Isn't that your personal moral view? Are you pushing your morality on me now? It's again very contradictory.
I can't think of any professor that I've had that hasn't been postmodern to a degree. One professor I had last semester started a discussion about some war in Israel and it soon turned into a debate over the existence of absolute truth. When I said that the statement "there is no absolute truth" was self-contradicting, the professor just got all flustered and rephrased the exact same statement using "big words." The funny thing is, he never gave me a satisfactory answer either. I've had professors completely ignore me if they didn't want to respond to me.
Still in high-school, I took some PSEO classes and again I had a postmodern teacher . . . and a very hostile postmodern class. The teacher though, was actually really nice and would respond very politely during any philosophical discussion (we would talk philosophy during lunch break). Near the end of the semester I finally said something that he couldn't respond to (I'm still praying). I said, "you know, in the end we're all going to die. But, if you're right that there is no absolute truth, and I'm wrong, then no big deal--we're both ok. But, if we die and I'm right and you're wrong . . . you're in BIG trouble." The teacher said it gave him a lot to think about.
Have you had any interesting experiences with postmodern professors or classmates?
Stand up for your faith and never surrender!
I'm sure you're as confused reading that as I was writing that. You know, because I'm currently attending a secular college I have run into many professors who believe that. Postmodernism is a very popular school of thought today. It sounds nice--you're right, I'm right, we're all right! But, how can completely opposing viewpoints be true? There's no way that all of the conflicting viewpoints in our world today can be true. As much as postmodernists will argue with you, there are several major logical fallacies in their belief system that you should point out to them.
They will say that there is no absolute truth. OK, are you absolutely sure? Is that absolutely true? That statement is self-contradicting. Some will say that there is no absolute truth except for the truth that there is no other absolute truth. Yeah, that doesn't make any sense either. Every time I have told a postmodernist that "there is no universal, absolute truth" is a universal, absolute truth claim, I have never received an satisfactory answer. I know that there are postmodernists who will argue further, but I have not encountered any as of yet. Hopefully I will someday . . .
Also, they claim that you cannot apply your personal moral views to anyone else. Isn't that your personal moral view? Are you pushing your morality on me now? It's again very contradictory.
I can't think of any professor that I've had that hasn't been postmodern to a degree. One professor I had last semester started a discussion about some war in Israel and it soon turned into a debate over the existence of absolute truth. When I said that the statement "there is no absolute truth" was self-contradicting, the professor just got all flustered and rephrased the exact same statement using "big words." The funny thing is, he never gave me a satisfactory answer either. I've had professors completely ignore me if they didn't want to respond to me.
Still in high-school, I took some PSEO classes and again I had a postmodern teacher . . . and a very hostile postmodern class. The teacher though, was actually really nice and would respond very politely during any philosophical discussion (we would talk philosophy during lunch break). Near the end of the semester I finally said something that he couldn't respond to (I'm still praying). I said, "you know, in the end we're all going to die. But, if you're right that there is no absolute truth, and I'm wrong, then no big deal--we're both ok. But, if we die and I'm right and you're wrong . . . you're in BIG trouble." The teacher said it gave him a lot to think about.
Have you had any interesting experiences with postmodern professors or classmates?
Stand up for your faith and never surrender!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)