Recommend Printing the Teachings for Ease of Study
Is The Bible True?
"What Is Truth?" P. Pilate
Due to numerous translations, secularist's opinions, false theory's, heresies, etc., many doubt the authenticity of the scriptures, including many professed Christians. There are even pastors and church leaders that parse the word of God, distorting and discarding select portions. This is not new, God gave warning in Malachi 2. They pick and choose what they like or don't like, choosing for themselves what to believe, manipulating the scriptures to suit their own agenda, due to the influence and indoctrination by others. The truth becomes subject to their own understanding or misunderstanding. When one does that, they cannot know truth, or be trusted.
Proverbs 3:5; "Trust in Yehvah with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding."
This chapter is not an attempt to convince staunch skeptics, but to teach both sincere seekers and genuine Christians, those persons that are diligently seeking truth, regardless of previously held beliefs, and regardless of what they have to give up, that they can have complete faith and confidence in the original scriptures.
"For believers, no proof is necessary; for unbelievers, no proof is sufficient."
I know the original scriptures are true, every word of them. I know that Yehvah God inspired men, through His Holy Spirit, to compile those writings that span thousands of years. But you say, "You cannot prove the bible is true." And I say, "Your right!" You see, no one can prove that any historical event took place, in any specific manner. You cannot know for absolute certainty that any historical event took place that you were not a witness to. Nor can you prove that any event you witnessed actually happened, in any specific manner. The best you can do is to prove that it "probably" took place as you claim. I cannot prove to you that the original scriptures are true, but we can determine if the original scriptures are "probably" true, beyond a reasonable doubt, just as we do to determine the "probability" of any historical event.
Many Christians, including pastors, that are not, as instructed in 1 Peter 3:15; "...prepared in all ways to give an answer to every person that asks...", say that one must have blind faith. I've even heard some say that not all the scriptures are able to be understood. These answers are typically not accepted by skeptics, and for good reason, those statements are not true. It is not necessary to have blind faith to believe that the scriptures are likely the original source of absolute truth known to humankind, just as they claim. If blind faith works for you, terrific, so long as you are prepared to give an answer to every person that asks, as to what you believe and why.
There are pastors, teachers and professors across this country, and around the world, that make claims of religion, historical events, or of scientific fact, that have little to no evidence to support what they claim is true, and yet, we believe it without question, because we falsely believe that credentials makes one a possessor of absolute truth in a particular field. We are going to find, that the scriptures are the "single most historically authenticated compilation of documents on the planet in excess of 1000 years, bar none", and of many assertions since; and that we can, with confidence, place our entire faith in them as the absolute Word of the only true and living God, Yehvah. We will begin this persistent journey, not through the Spirit of God, since that requires faith, but by taking a secular approach. We will begin by using the same methods, that self proclaimed, brilliant men and women of academia use to determine the probability of truth, of any historical event.
These methods are; Science and reasoning / logic.
Science: The recognition of truth, as concluded by the determination, and the application of, absolute knowledge, facts or principles, relating to any subject. It is limited to the examination of things that are sensed. If something cannot be naturally sensed; seen, smelt, tasted, heard, or felt, it cannot be scientifically accepted or explained, thereby, it cannot determine or explain all truth.
Fact: Reality; truth, actual. Anything actually witnessed as done, produced, achieved or demonstrated. Theory is not fact; by definition, it is conjecture; unproven.
Theory: a mere hypothesis, conjecture, speculation, scheme, idea or guess.
Principles (laws): Grounds or foundation that supports an assertion; a determination of fact; an action or a series of actions based on reasoning's and the actual results of the applied reasoning.
Reasoning: Factual thoughts that form the grounds, foundation or cause of an intellectual conclusion or determination. The cause, ground, foundation, principle or motive of any thing said or done. That which supports or justifies a determination, conclusion, plan or action.
Deductive Reasoning: Reasoning which uses deductive arguments to move from given statements (premises), which are supposed, theorized or assumed to be true, to conclusions, which must be true if the premises are true. Example: all men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Inductive Reasoning: While deductive reasoning applies general principles to reach specific conclusions, inductive reasoning examines specific information, even multiple pieces, to conclude a general principle (law). Example: By examining how apples fall and how planets move, Isaac Newton concluded the "law" of gravity.
Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning justly.
Ref.: Noah Websters original 1828 "American Dictionary of the English Language."
Is There a Creator?
The "theory of evolution", known as Darwinism, named after Charles Darwin, is proving to be one of the most successful satan's ever devised (satan: Hb.; enemy, adversary, obstacle, opposition to good). This theory is now being taught around the world as scientific fact as to the existence of humankind, exclusive of any other theories or facts. And, not only in regard to the existence of humankind, but as the leading fact declaring that no-thing was created by design, that every-thing occurred by chance. It proposes that humankind evolved from an (undetermined) species of monkey, which had subsequently evolved from some lower biological life form, that by chance, was formed out of multiple non-life forms in a liquid substance, such as pond scum. Wow! That takes far more faith than I have to believe that.
This theory spawns far more questions than answers. For instance, there are numerous different species of primates, that all have different DNA, with vastly different characteristics. Which one did we evolve from? And how come there are still monkeys, but none in an obvious evolutionary stage of becoming a human? There is no reason to consider that the process would not be continuous. Did the monkey come directly from the liquid substance? Wouldn't there be numerous solidifying evolutionary forms in existence, even to this day? And of course, where did the pond and non-life form substances come from? And what about two genders, both dependant on the other for procreation? One creature such formed is mathematically impossible, as we will see, but two? Two creatures similar yet so different, both physically and emotionally, codependent on the other for future existence? And what about races that are decidedly different in appearance and physiological makeup.
Remember, theory is not fact, because it is not proven. It is a hypothesis for the beginning of a study to determine fact. Once proven as fact, it is no longer a theory, but instead it becomes recognized as "law". Not only have thousands of scientist and 150 years not proved Darwin's theory as fact, but genuine science has proved it impossible. But I propose that making up and embracing something not understandable, to explain what they didn't understand, was never meant as a means to prove anything, only an attempt to refute the existence of God; in order to be god (Is. 14:13-14), to be in authority, which ironically, they already were. We'll learn more about that later.
Fact is, there has been no evidence ever found to support the hypothesis that any species has ever evolved into another, as illustrated in the fabricated, cartoonish "evolution chart". There is evidence of "adaptability", where a species, or specie's developed different physical characteristics to adapt to environmental changes, but always remained the same species. The claim is that chimpanzees are most like us and so they must be our fore fathers, yet again, why are there still chimps, and where is evidence of this continuous process; half man monkeys.
Silliness aside, researchers at a company called Perlegen Sciences used a powerful computer chip to scan the entire genetic makeup of an organism, that is, the whole genome. The results published in an issue of Genome Research, show that chimps are much different than scientists previously thought. "This study provides a valuable starting point from which to improve our understanding of what makes human beings unique." said David Cox, Perlegen's chief scientific officer. According to scientific findings recently published in the journals of "Science and Nature", there are over 40 million differences between chimp DNA and that of humans. 40 MILLION! There are also differences between various groups of humans. Are there similarities? Of course there are. There are similarities in all DNA. Human DNA has similarities to plant DNA. We could just as likely suggest that we evolved from a tree. Since the study of DNA, or genomes, is exhaustive, let's cut to a definitive conclusion.
DNA and genetic codes: They are the premier evidence of design. and ALL living things contain DNA. Scientists say that a DNA code has a "structure" identity, a written language; letters, words, sentences and paragraphs, that are constructed to convey information of what and how a particular living thing is to be. They go on to say that in the case of written languages that, "we have "uniform" experience (the law of order), that they have an "intelligent cause." Therefore, DNA and the data therein, is of an "intelligent design." They applied the "law" of the "two forms of order" in the world, by which all things exist; "natural order" and "unnatural order". "Natural order" would be demonstrated such as; a natural rock formation, a snowflake, ripples of sand on a beach, etc. "Unnatural order" would be things such as, Mount Rushmore, an automobile, or a language. DNA code is a language. It is of an "unnatural order", which means, it could not have occurred by naturally by chance. It is at the core of all life, and therefore, the "origin of life" has an intelligent cause. DNA cannot begin on it's own by random chance. It's components, which are in the multiple billions, must be assembled in perfect order to provide accurate information. For this to have occurred once is mathematically improbable; to have occurred in mass production, occurring billions of times for each DNA, and billions more times for each cell, of which we are made up of billions of, to create one life form, is beyond mathematically impossible.
The answer to our question is Yes. There is a creator. All life exists by cause and design. Only life, can produce life.
Darwin's pursuit might well have been more noble than I first suggested, having found it to be said that he never expected his hypothesis to be validated as "law", or to discount the existence of God, as was illustrated in this quote of his; "The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God." With relative due respect, he was at a grave disadvantage. In his day, the view through primitive microscopes, the cell appeared as a single blob of protoplasm. Now, 150 years later, the view has changed dramatically, as science has discovered a virtual universe inside of each cell. Unbelievers are trying to apply 19th century thinking to a 21st century reality. Not only is the theory of evolution not probable, it is impossible, according to the facts revealed by genuine science.
Romans 1:20; "For the unseen things of God, from the creation of the universe, are clearly evident, being revealed by the things that are seen, even revealing His eternal power and (singular) Godhead, so that, humankind is without excuse to not believe."
"...scientists may boldly assert, what they cannot prove, and may demand a faith, far more credulous (gullible), than any we possess." - Charles Spurgeon
One must ask themselves, en-light of the truth, for what purpose is this obvious lie still being perpetrated on humankind; Humh?
Ref.: Journal of Theoretical Biology; origins.org; The End of Darwinism; Alfred Schultzm; Science and Religion; common reasoning.
Exercise: Imagine the components that makeup these finished works, spread out in an area uninfluenced by humans, assembling themselves in perfect order to operate as intended, by random chance of natural circumstances; a constructed house, an automobile engine, just an alphabet, or even just the 8 pieces of a balsa wood airplane. Impossible! Could not happen even once.
Good source of continued study: DNA; God's amazing programing... ; icr.org
What Do We Now Know? That All Life Exists by Cause and Design.
The next question is;
How Did The Universe Begin?
Cosmology, as a metaphysical science, originates with the "Copernican Principle", which implies that celestial bodies obey identical physical laws to those on earth; and "Newtonian Mechanics", which first allowed us to understand motion. It involves itself with studying the motions of the celestial bodies relative to the law of "First Cause". The law of "First cause" has been applied to philosophical and theological arguments to determine the potential existence of God, relative to the consideration of the "spontaneous generation" of life and the cosmos, as well as of all things that be.
Plato (427-347 BC) and Aristotle (384-322 BC) referred to "First Cause" as the "Prime Mover or "Unmoved Mover". The philosophical question was the origin of existence (being) and motion. The first thought was; Being is motion (for something to come into existence, there must be motion). Second, motion is a "caused" change in the state of being (for there to be motion, something must be). In other words, the chicken had to come before the egg; and the egg had to come before the chicken. Imagine all things in the universe that be. It took a motion for those things to be. Something had to move. The philosophical question is answered in discovering what moved, if nothing be. Good luck. To date, thousands of brilliant men and women have pondered this question, and no one has been able to prove an answer to it; because it is unseen. All we know for certain is, that some "thing" outside this natural universe moved and caused it to come into existence.
Only one account has been provided us; Genesis, chapter one, verse one; "In the beginning of time, Elohiym created the heaven and the earth (the universe)". Jn. 4:24 says that God is a spirit. Genesis 1:2 says, "...and the spirit of Elohiym moved across the water...". That movement implies that the spirit of Elohym caused every "thing" in this universe to be. Genesis 1:31 says, "And Elohiym saw every "thing" they created and they held it as good".
Alert; Myth Buster: The universe was not created in 6-24 hour days as religion has widely spread; that is not what the scriptures say. Under that "theory", a 24 hour day could not even exist until the fourth day, making it impossible. The scriptures declare it as 6 undetermined time frames. Nor was it created 6000 years ago mol., but it was returned to habitability for the first humankind to inhabit about that time (the sixth day (age). Genuine science has proven that the earth is at least millions, if not billions of years old. And, Genesis 1:28 instructs humans to "replenish" (refill) the earth.
Clearly it was filled before, but not with humans, as genuine scientist's concede. The earth originated as "one" continent, not five. (Genesis 1:9), as clearly seen in view of a world map (note: dinosaur's remains found on all five continents). The earth had become uninhabitable after a cataclysmic impact, which devided the single earth continent immediately causing the sea to wash over the earth, drowning most life ,then blocking out the sun resulting in a quick freeze (ice age) which destroyed all land dwelling creatures (dinosaur remains mostly found intact; not normal for animals that die in the wild; typically torn apart by other animals). Only sea creatures survived which explains the prehistoric nature of most sea life.
We've all heard of the "Big Bang" theory, whereby ... the universe was created by two or more "things" running into each other; two "things" that already existed. Huh? Clearly does not explain the birth of the "natural" universe. Let's examine a different Big Bang Theory inlight of "the law of first cause" and Genesis 1. Did the universe suddenly, spontaneously, instantaneously explode into being? It is declared by many, big bang or not, that the universe came into existence without a "cause", thereby discrediting "inteligent design"; God. But, according to the "law of first cause", we know better, and have for over 150 years. If some "thing" came into being, then we know that movement took place and therefore, some "thing" else had to exist. And, since the universe did not exist prior to this "big bang", then what existed, was clearly outside this universe.
The "theory" that the universe spontaneously exploded into being, which we now know as fact, law, spawned the discovery of the "law" known as "The (ever) expanding universe." An astronomer named Edwin Hubble, observed that every galaxy in the universe was moving out and away, and that the farther out they were, the faster they were moving. This implied that the universe was uniformly expanding from it's point of origin; an explosion. When Einstein applied this notion to the structure of the universe, relative to his previously held theory that the universe was static (constant, neither expanding or receeding), he stated that it was "...the greatest blunder of my life." The explosion, "big bang", Genesis 1, is continuous to this very day, and we are in it. Our galaxy is ever moving outward and away from the center of it's point of creation.
Now, let's examine this conclusion as if playing a film in reverse, from any present date. The universe would eventually return to no-thing. The instant before it came into existence, it would be "unseen" (Hebrew 11:1-3). This is a point of "infinite density", known in physics as "singularity", and it makes no sense, in science; the study of the "natural." Scientist's, physicist's, are stumped by this conclusion, that "some (natural) thing" could come from "no (natural) thing." It is "no thing SEEN (sensed)" that stumps them, since science is the study of only things sensed with our 5 senses; "natural" things. Our finite minds are limited to only that which we can sense. Any "thing" beyond that, requires FAITH, Again God explains. Hebrew 11:1,3; "Now, faith is a "substance of (natural) "things" "expected", the evidence of (spiritual) things not seen. ...It is by faith that we understand, that the (natural) universe was created by the word (spoken thoughts) of God, so that, (natural) things which are seen, were not made by (natural) things which are seen". Therefore, all "natural things" begin as "spiritual things"; thoughts.
Alert: Myth Buster; Unfortuantely, God is not in charge, we are! All natural things that can be sensed, first originated as a "thought"; word, before they came to be (Selah; stop and think about it). Creating the universe was only "the beginning". We have been creating every "natural thing" ever since Genisis 2, since we were put in charge; Genesis 1:26; "Eloyhm said, let Us create them (humans) exactly like Us, and give them authority over ...all the earth." The reason bad things happen, is because we first "think" it, then create it, by choice (free will; Deut 11:26-28). Don't blame God, He does no harm (evil) (James 1:13). All of God's ways produce prosperity in all things when dwelt upon over and over (think, meditate) until they manifest in the natural (Joshua 1: 7-9). See "Discerning Truth; In The Beginning"
This is why scientist's cannot prove the existence of God, because he is unseen; He is a spirit.
What Do We Now Know? 1) What begins to exist has a cause; no-thing exists by random chance.
2) The universe, and all things in it, began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe, and all things in it, had a cause.
Conclusion: All natural things that BE, had a cause, and there is NO natural cause for the natural universe. Therefore, all things natural came into being by a moving force (supernatural) outside this universe, leaving no doubt, that there IS a Creator !
Question Is, Who or What?
For Further Consideration, See; "Scientific Proof of God" Video by renown scientist, Dr. Jason Lisle.
If a Creator Caused, then a Purpose and a Plan
Plan and Design
Now that we've conclusively determined that there was a creator, having learned that no-thing comes into existence without a cause, and therefore, the natural universe came into existence by cause; who or what is it? Is it the God of the bible? Since the universe did not come into being by chance, then there was a design. A design is the result of specific, orderly, detailed "thinking". Contemplate the extreme complexity and functioning order of all things originally created; the universe and all the components of plants, animals and humans in it. Study an "eye" alone. No human could begin to think an eye into existence. The complexity of an eye is beyond our comprehension. And it is but one of millions of mind boggling, orderly functioning natural creations. Selah (pause and consider; meditate).
No design is created without a purpose, and if a purpose, a plan. Everything that is deliberately created was done so to fulfill a purpose. In order for some-thing to be created, it must be designed. And in order for the design to fulfill the purpose, there must be a plan. And, for a plan to be successfully executed, it must be communicated.
If a plan depends on others, it cannot succeed unless all those that are crucial to the success of the plan have the plan communicated to them. For instance, if you were a business owner that decided to add on to your existing building or to build another, would it ever become a reality if you never told anyone about it? Of course not. The structure you "thought" to create began with a purpose; more space, better layout or location, etc., to ultimately be able to make more money; hence, the purpose. You would begin to "think" up an "orderly" plan of how to achieve the creation of the building you "desire", in "order" to communicate it to others. You would first consult an architect to convert your plan to convey even greater detail. You might contact a real estate agent to locate a suitable piece of property. You would next need to find a contractor to construct the building "exactly" as the plans describe. The contractor would then hire employees and of course, all this would need local government approval. As you can see, for the purpose to be fulfilled, communication must occur, in great detail, to all those that are to be involved in the plans success, and the plan must be completed exactly as communicated. Any deviation would not achieve the fulfilment of the plan, thereby not meeting the desired purpose. The universe and everything in it was created to fulfill the purpose of the creator, according to a plan. The scriptures tell us that we are crucial to the fulfilment of "the plan". That we "are" the objects of the purpose; to be "blessed", all to the glory of Yeh. (Note: You can apply this example of the principle of creation to any-thing created).
So, where's "the plan"? Since all things that were created, including and especially us, are part of the creators plan, and a plan must be conveyed to all that are necessary for it's success, where's the plan? Knowing what we now know, the original scriptures are the only writings known to mankind, claiming and communicating a plausible explanation of the creation of all things, a purpose and a plan; a creator. The three major world religions, claimed by more than half the worlds population, originate from the Old Testament Jewish writings. The Jewish religion is predicated on absolute faith that all the Old Testament is authored by Yehvah God. They do not deny that Yehshua (Jesus) was a real person, but do deny His devinity, discounting dozens of scriptures however. The Koran, the book of Islam, expresses belief in much of the Old Testament as it's foundation, yet tarnishes it's own credibility by refuting the rest. It was written 600 years after Christ, and over 2000 years since the Old Testament it validates, making it less reliable. It includes many of the Old Testament characters, such as; Adam and Eve, Noah, Job, Joseph, Abraham, Ismail, Moses, David, numerous prophets and John. It acknowledges Jesus as the son of mary, a prophet, messenger sent by allah (ellah, God, almighty). However, it does not accept who and what He claimed to be. Imagine that, Allah sent a messenger, a Jewish messenger no less, who was a liar. How could that be, that Allah would send an infidel to lie to the world? How then, could anyone trust such a god; such a book? See: "The Bible vs. The Qur'an"
Over half the worlds population believe that all or some of the bibles Old Testament is absolute truth. They agree that it prophecies of the coming of The Annointed One; giving great credibility to the probabibility that the Old testament is the plan, of Yehvah God, given us. But what about the New Testament? Is the New Testaments claim that Yehshua was the Messiah (annointed one), part of the plan revealed? Those believers of the Old Testament; Christians, Jews and Muslims, assert that He was a real man, having lived when the New Testament says He did, that He was the son of Mary and Joseph, and they agree about many other things the New Testament says about Him. How is it that they even know of this man, if not for the New Testament account?
What Do We Know? That most of the world believes that much, or all, of the Old testament is God authored, revealing Himself and His plan.
Conclusion: The Old Testament is probably true. So, let's go further by examining the probable truth of the scriptures, that they are what they claim to be, Yehvah's plan for mankind, by applying "historical authentication".
Historical Document Authentication
Criticism of biblical accounts does not begin and end with genesis one; denying intelligent design, a creator. We could address numerous accounts such as; Noah's ark, Abraham and Isaac, or Moses parting the sea, etc. Did this or that event occur; could this or that event really happen? The fact is, NO historical document or account can be proven as fact. No one can know for certain if a historical event took place as told unless they were an eye witness. And, no one can prove to anyone else, that the event they witnessed actually took place. What humankind has come to rely on, is probability. The assembly and analysis of known facts to determine the likelihood, the probability, that a historical event took place as told. Many archaeological findings prove certain assertions were probably true, but no amount of probable evidence can conclusively prove that a historical account is genuine or accurate.
While not all the events in the bible have been proved true, none have been proved false, and archaeological findings in recent decades have substantiated more and more. Keeping in mind that the bible was not meant to be a history book per se', it is being proved to be historically accurate, proving many scientist's, critics and nay-sayers wrong. For example;
How did they know? How did the writer (Mosses) of the book of Genesis know that the earth was created as one land mass. It is clear and evident, when you look at a world map, and the fact that dinosaur remains have been found on every continent, that the five continents used to be joined into one land mass, as described in Genesis 1: 9-10. At such a time in history, some 3500 years ago, how could anyone have known. They were aware of the sea and the separation of lands; other lands that was only accessable by sea; obvious that all land was not connected. How would he have known that thousands, or millions, or billions of years early, when the earth became, that there was one land mass.
Here's just a few more examples of depictions previously denied; Hitite nation (Deut. 7:1); Nineveh (Jonah 1:1,2); Sodom (Gen. 19:1); King Belshazzar (Dan. 5:1); King Sargon (Is. 20:1); Temech family (Neh 7:55); Queen Jezebel and Jeroboam (1 and 2 Kings). We could discuss these type of findings endlessly, but instead, let's examine the documents themselves.
There are no known original documents, called autographs, of the bible. The documents that make up the bible are comprised of manuscripts; copies of originals and other copies. Greater credibility is given to original over copies, however, it is only marginal. Copies are not discredited because they are copies. Copies are necessary to preserve original writings that deteriorate due to time and weather. As with any ancient book however, transmitted through a number of handwritten manuscripts, the logical question arises as to the level of confidence that we can have that it mirrors the autograph.
Most historical events in excess of 1000 years old, do not have autographs to support their authenticity. Scholars rely on copies to support numerous events that are taught by academia as absolute fact in high schools and colleges throughout this world, and yet many deny the validity of the bible. There are a number of reasons to have confidence in the copies that were used for the bible. One is, the credibility of the scribes. They were highly regarded in their day, considered professional and trustworthy. They employed various methods of ensuring that their copies were correct, such as counting the letters of each line. Furthermore, they were devout Jews that believed they were copying the very words of God. They would be highly unlikely to make a mistake, let alone deliberately falsify the sacred word of their God.
Rom. 3:1,2; "What advantage does the Jew have? ... Great in every way, first of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of Yehvah."
Let's apply the same methods the scholars of this world do, to establish the degree of probability, that a historical document and it's content, are true and accurate. First, it is accepted and established, that documents dating closest to the time of the alleged event, are the most reliable. Content of later documents, that contradict or alter earlier accounts, such as the Gnostic gospels or the gospels of Thomas and Philip, and others, are considered unlikely and do not over-ride the credibility of the earlier accounts. Next, is scientific testing. The existing documents in the bible have undergone the following tests: radiocarbon dating; ink analysis, multi-spectral imaging; contextual evidence and paleography. These tests were conducted to verify the time and place the documents were likely created.
Old Testament Hebrew Manuscripts
The Dead Sea Scrolls: 200 B.C. - 70 A.D.; Contains all of Isaiah and portions of all the other books except Esther.
Geniza Fragments: 400 A.D.; Portions of all written in Hebrew and Aramaic, discovered in 1947.
Ben Asher Manuscripts: 700 - 1008 A.D.; This family of scribes made copies from the Masoretic Hebrew text, the Aleppo Codex
and the Codex Leningradensis.
Old Testament Translated Manuscripts
Aramaic Targums: 400 B.C.; Translated from the Hebrew since the Jewish people had begun to speak Aramaiv while Babylon captivity
by King Nebuchadnezzar, under the Medo-Persian Empire in 586 B.C. It was still the common language being used
in first century Palestine at the time of Jesus.
Septuagint; Greek: 250 B.C.; Approximately 70 translators worked to translate the Hebrew into Greek. It was used by the early church, 100 - 400 A.D.; Chester Beatty Papyri; contains nine books of the Septuagint, 350 A.D.; and the
Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus Codex's contain almost the entire Old Testament Septuagint.
New Testament Greek Manuscripts Date Autograph Believed Written
Earliest Manuscript: 125 A.D.; copied just 35 years after the original The Pauline Epistles: 45 -63 A.D.
Bodmer P 66: 200 A.D.; Contains most of the Gospel of Kohn. The Gospel of Mark: 45 - 63 A.D.
Chester Beatty P 46: 200 A.D.; Contains the Pauline epistles and Hebrews. The Gospel of Luke: 45 - 63 A.D.
Bodmer Papyrus P 75: 225 A.D.; Contains the gospels of Luke and John. The Book of Acts: 45 - 63 A.D.
Chester Beatty P 45: 250 - 300 A.D.; Contains the four gospels and Acts. The Gospel of John: 80 - 90 A.D.
Codex Sinaiticus: 350 A.D.; Contains the entire New Testament. Revelation of John: 90 - 95 A.D.
Codex Vaticanus: 350 A.D.; An almost complete New Testament.
New Testament Translations
Greek to Latin; Syriac and Coptic: 180 A.D.
Old Latin: 195 A.D.; First Old and New Testament translation, both from Greek into Latin
The Old Syriac: 300 A.D.
The Coptic Versions: 300 A.D.; Translated into four Coptic dialects which were spoken in Egypt.
The Latin Vulgate: 380 A.D.; Translated by Jerome from Old Testament Hebrew and the New Testament Greek. It was however
corrupt, and forced upon the world as the only translation, as all others were being destroyed by the Romans
for over 1000 years, until the Protestant Reformation of 1380 - 1580 mol.
Next, to determine if a copy or an original are probably true, scholars depend on the sheer amount of documents found. The more autographs and manuscripts found, that tell the same story, with little variation, the more likely the documents accounts are accurate and truthful.
As Points of Reference: The Bible has stronger manuscript support than any work of classical literature depicting historical events, including the following:
|Earliest Copy||Approximate Time Span between original & copy||Number of Copies||Accuracy of Copies|
|Lucretius||died 55 or 53 B.C.||1100 yrs||2||----|
|Pliny||61-113 A.D.||850 A.D.||750 yrs||7||----|
|Plato||427-347 B.C.||900 A.D.||1200 yrs||7||----|
|Demosthenes||4th Cent. B.C.||1100 A.D.||800 yrs||8||----|
|Herodotus||480-425 B.C.||900 A.D.||1300 yrs||8||----|
|Suetonius||75-160 A.D.||950 A.D.||800 yrs||8||----|
|Thucydides||460-400 B.C.||900 A.D.||1300 yrs||8||----|
|Euripides||480-406 B.C.||1100 A.D.||1300 yrs||9||----|
|Aristophanes||450-385 B.C.||900 A.D.||1200||10||----|
|Caesar||100-44 B.C.||900 A.D.||1000||10||----|
|Livy||59 BC-AD 17||----||???||20||----|
|Tacitus||circa 100 A.D.||1100 A.D.||1000 yrs||20||----|
|Aristotle||384-322 B.C.||1100 A.D.||1400||49||----|
|Sophocles||496-406 B.C.||1000 A.D.||1400 yrs||193||----|
|Homer (Iliad)||900 B.C.||400 B.C.||500 yrs (nearly 1000 years after written)
|1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D.||2nd Cent. A.D.
(c. 130 A.D. f.)
|less than 100 years||5600||99.5%|
There is also Josephus, a renown Jewish historian; Josephus War; 70 A.D.: 9 manuscripts exist in Greek, dating from 1000 - 2000 A.D., and one in Latin from 400 A.D.
All of these are considered, accepted and taught throughout high schools and colleges everywhere, as indisputable truthful writings of historical events, and yet, they have but a fraction of the support of that of the biblical writings of which, are banned from and cannot be taught in our schools except as fiction or philosophy.
We have only a handful of Old Testament manuscripts that date before 900 A.D. There are others that date since, from the Ben Asher manuscripts and the Greek Septuagint, to the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus codex's, but many are in poor condition. The best and most substantial discovery was that of the Qumran manuscripts (Dead Sea Scrolls).
The New Testament is far better validated than the Old. There are over 5,600 individual Greek manuscripts that have survived, containing all or portions (known as fragments) of the New Testament. These were written on different materials. Papyrus was reed from the Nile Valley that was glued in sheets, much like plywood, only thinner. Parchment was made from sheep and goat skins. It was scarce and more expensive. In addition to the Greek manuscripts, there are more than 10,000 copies and fragments written in Syrian, Coptic, Armenian, Aramaic, Gothic and Ethiopic, and there are 8,000 copies of the Latin Vulgate. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000, and all written before 1,000 A.D. As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing.
The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the First Century. If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. Again, this is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents from the First Century that contest the New Testament texts.
Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing (John Rylands Papyri 125 A.D.). This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a First Century document.
If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and the other authors mentioned in the chart at the beginning of the paper. On the other hand, if the critics acknowledge the historicity and writings of those other individuals, then they must also retain the historicity and writings of the New Testament authors; after all, the evidence for the New Testament's reliability is far greater than the others. The Christian has substantially superior criteria for affirming the New Testament documents than he does for any other ancient writing. It is good evidence on which to base the trust in the reliability of the New Testament.
What Do We Know? That the books and letters of the bible, especially the New Testament, are the single most
historically authenticated collection of ancient historical documents known to humankind.
Conclusion: If you believe ANY account of a historical event having taken place, that you were not a witness to, in order to have "intellectual integrity", you must believe that the Bible is true. But let's go even further, by examining the credibility of the writers, by applying another method used to authenticate historical documents.
Logic and Reasoning
Judicial Reasoning: As a judicial inquiry, to determine the credibility of the writers.
So now we know, that the Bible is probably true according to scientific examination and world accepted authentication. But let's go a step further. Let's reasonably examine the writers of the New Testament, and some of the things they wrote. To determine the credibility of the writers, we will apply logic and reasoning. (ref. PG. 1; definitions)
We will now apply another accepted method that the world uses to determine the probability of truth; judicial inquiry. In examining evidences, it is essential to the discovery of truth that we bring to the investigation a mind freed, as far as possible, from existing prejudice; a clean slate, open to conviction. Our mind must be free from pride of opinion, not hostile to the truth, willing to diligently pursue the inquiry, to impartially weigh the arguments and evidence, and to acquiesce to the judgment of right reasoning. There must be a readiness on our part, to investigate with candor, to follow truth wherever it leads; and to submit, without reserve or objection, to all the evidence, regardless of its implication. And, this particular subject, vital to life here and here after, should be pursued with the serious earnestness which becomes its importance.
The foundation of our faith is a basis of fact; the fact of the birth, ministry, miracles, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. These are related by the Apostles as having actually occurred, within their own personal knowledge. Our faith then, rests on the credit due to these witnesses. Let's begin by examining the "rules of evidence" regarding ancient documents. An ancient document, accepted into evidence in our courts, is said to come from the proper repository, when it is found in the place where, and under the care of persons with whom, such writings might naturally and reasonably be expected to be found; for it is this custody which gives authenticity to documents found within it. If they come from such a place and bear no marks of forgery, and the opposing party is unable to impeach them, which is their burden by law, the law presumes that they are genuine.
That is the case with the ancient Scriptures. They have been used in the church from the time they were written, and thus, are found in the place where one might expect to find them, in familiar use throughout the churches of Christendom. They come to us as genuine writings, precisely as any number of ancient writing manuscripts do, to be believed as plain narratives of the men whose names they respectively bear, made public at the time they were written, and though there are some slight discrepancies among the copies subsequently made, there is no pretense that the originals were in any way corrupted. If any ancient document were lost, copies which have been as universally received and acted upon as the four Gospels have been, the number one bestseller of all times, they would be received into evidence in any court of law, without the slightest hesitation. Therefore, according to the "rules of evidence", we can reasonably accept the four Gospels as valid evidence as being what they claim to be; the authoritative word of God.
We can now proceed to examine the accepted credibility of the testimony of the four evangelists; to inquire whether their claims are proved by competent and satisfactory evidence, to be factual, according to the "rules of evidence". Municipal law provides a rule of evidence, to consider where the burden lies, of establishing the credibility of witnesses. It states, "In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witnesses is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching their credibility lying on the objector." In light of this rule, the testimonies of the four evangelists would be accepted into evidence as truth, as are the writings of historians, such as, Josephus, Livy, Tacitus and Polybius. To impugn the testimony of the four evangelists, without evidence of impeachment, after 2000 years, is to commit an injustice.
But even if the burden was to fall to the historians themselves, or supporters thereof, it is possible to declare the testimony of the four evangelists as truth, when we consider the nature and character of the testimony. Again, there is a law of evidence which addresses this consideration; it states "The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon their honesty, ability, their number and consistency, experience, and the coincidence relative to collateral circumstances."
Examination of Required Atributes
- Honesty: They are entitled to the benefit of the general course of human experience, which is, that persons ordinarily tell the truth, when they have no prevailing motive to lie. This presumption is applied even to witnesses whose integrity is not free of suspicion, therefore, it would certainly apply to persons whose testimony goes against their worldly best interests. Their unified declarations, which sought to overthrow all other religions, claiming that this man Jesus was the Christ, that he rose from the dead, and that a man's only expectation of salvation was through repentance of sin and faith in who he claimed to be and in the sacrifice that he paid, subjected them to great terrors and fears for their safety and that of their loved ones. They were perceived as heretics and criminals. Having scattered for their lives on the night Jesus was taken, yet came to stand boldly against the entire world, being beaten, imprisoned and hounded, even unto death.
- Ability: The ability of a witness to speak the truth depends on the opportunities which they have had to observe the facts, the accuracy of their powers of discernment, and the faithfulness of their memory in retaining the facts.
- Opportunity to observe: It is clear by the authentication dating of the gospel writings, that they wrote, and therefore lived at the time verified, indeed, at the time of Christ.
- Ability of discernment: Several being bright men; Matthew and Luke, having affluent positions requiring average to above average intelligence and education, not to mention, scrutiny of persons and events and attention to details; i.e. Matthew: a tax collector, trained to account and recognize evaders; and Luke: a physician, keen observation being essential. There's no reason to believe that that wasn't also true of Mark and John; and I'm certain that, though Peter (having dictated to Mark) was not well educated, he was no idiot, to have been chosen to lead the others.
- Ability to remember facts: Again, men of education, likely to be somewhat studious, used to writing and taking notes, conveying or retaining what they'd experienced. Likely to assume, that their natural memory was no less than the average person. They were taught by repetition, the very means which is most effective for one to retain what they've been exposed to. John stated that; "If all the things Jesus did were recorded, that the world itself could not contain all the books that would be written." That may have been an exaggeration on his part, but clearly, these men had experienced as much as 16 waking hours a day, for over 1000 days, the teachings and deeds of Jesus. Likely to make an indemniable mark on anyone's memory.
Number and consistency: We have four accounts, of many events of a broad event; the deeds and teachings of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Their accounts, are like that of any credible witness; substantial truth under circumstantial variety. There is enough discrepancy to show that they wrote independent of one another, yet at the same time, such substantial agreement, as to show that they truly shared witness to many of the same events. When persons conspire to tell a lie they come up with one account, rehearse it, and agree to stand firm on it, which they seldom do under pressure. Like when criminals that are arrested try to get their stories straight. It is why police are suspicious, when multiple suspects of a single crime, tell exactly the same story. It appears rehearsed, especially if minute details are told exactly the same. Therefore, the evangelists accounts, have marginal and insignificant discrepancies as to exclude coercion, yet, in concert of testimony over all concerning various events, would thereby, under judicial appropriateness, be received as reality of fact.
Relative to uncommon experience: And argument raised by some is, that if the facts that a witness relates, are such as do not ordinarily occur in common human experience, that they are not to be believed. The assertion is, that miracles don't occur because most people have never experienced one, and therefore, the accounts of such or false; either the writers have been deceived or they are attempting to deceive. It assumes that persons cannot believe in things they have not personally seen or experienced. But this is not true. For instance; most Americans believe in aliens and ghosts and many believe in fortunetellers, palm readers and the like. Clearly, we have no problem believing in things that we haven't seen. Thousands of people can attest to miracles in their lives, especially in ways of healing. Many a doctor is without explanation when terminal, in operable or operable necessary diagnoses must be reversed in light of complete, non-medical, non-natural healings. Testimony therefore, cannot be discredited on that basis.
Collateral circumstances: This refers to details that would exceed generalities of a claim. The evangelists included a lot of detail, much seemingly insignificant or not necessary. They would be unlikely to added such a level of detail if they were fabricating a story. A false witness will not willingly detail circumstances, nor in Belarusian or multiplied them, creating the possibility of them being detected as false, by comparison to other accounts or facts. The fewer the details and specifics, the less likely of making a mistake that could be refuted. The testimony of a false witness often is inconsistent in the level of specifics, perhaps adding details to one area of testimony, but not to others, in an attempt to be believed. A true witness however, will willingly, readily and naturally convey details consistently, as is generally their natural, individual attention to details.
Reference: "The Testimony of the Evangelists" by; Simon Greenleaf, P. A.
What Do We Know? That the credibility of the writers, when subjected to judicial scrutiny, prove to be without question of doubt.
Conclusion: That the gospels are probably true. We can confidently trust in the claims they make.
Common Reasoning: A pursuit and examination of facts to arrive at an intellectual conclusion.
Imagine that this was a hoax. That this man Jesus and twelve others developed a scheme, a conspiracy. For what purpose? No financial gain, on the contrary. To get girls; what, with no money? To be ridiculed, tortured and put to death? A man may be tortured and die for the truth, but not for a lie. Romans 5:7 says; "… Scarcely will one die for a righteous man."; never for the unrighteous. Consider that these men would conspire by joint fabrication, to impose a false religion on the world, declaring all other religions to be false, bringing on themselves the wrath of so many. Many a conspiracy has been perpetrated for love or money, but not hardship and death.
How about keeping such a secret for three years, and for all but one, to continue standing by it for the rest of their lives. Thirteen men would have to keep this secret. How many people do you know that could keep a secret of that magnitude, especially in the face of persecution? And what about Judas? If he was going to betray Jesus, why would he not just tell the Sanhedrin the truth, that the whole thing was a farce? And, would he then commit suicide for a lie? These men clearly believed that what Jesus proclaimed was indeed true. Therefore, what they proclaimed, they believed as well. These were honest men.
What a difference 40 days can make. This same group of men scattered like roaches when the lights come on, on the night Jesus was arrested, just as one might imagine how anyone, particularly liars and conmen, would respond to a threat of imprisonment or death. Yet, within 40 days, these same men would spend thWhat a difference 40 days can make. This same group of men scattered like roaches when lights come on, on the night Jesus was arrested, just as one might ime rest of their lives facing those same threats daily, to relentlessly preach and teach the claims of this man Jesus. It could only be the resurrection from the dead.
Think of the others outside of the thirteen that would need to cooperate, even the enemies of the Jews. All the prophecies of the Old Testament, the book of the Jews, that were fulfilled, could only have been fulfilled, with the deliberate or coerced cooperation of the Romans; enemies of those very same Jews. There would be no incentive to cooperate with this rebel band of Jewish expatriates. But worse than that, it would take the deliberate cooperation of the Jewish officials themselves, to deliberately undermine their rejection of Jesus as the Christ, to participate in the very fulfillment of prophecy that they themselves denied. Highly unlikely!
A few more things to consider. What a risk the evangelists would be taking to write and distribute stories that were untrue or misleading at a time when so many witnesses, and their offspring, were around to refute it. Doesn't seem likely that these stories, if not true, would have survived as truth and not just fables. And, if you were going to make up a religion to follow, you would typically make up one whereby you could fulfill all your fleshly desires. The moral admonitions adds to their believability. Also, the exalted involvement and participation of women in their accounts would have been culturally unacceptable. Women were considered second-class, below man, as they believed God intended. If the writers were intent on perpetuating a hoax, to be successful, it would be imperative for men to believe it. It would be highly unlikely, that they would state that it was women that first experienced such a profound event; that the proclaimed son of God had risen from the dead. Again, regarding the accounts of miracles, what else would you expect from men of God? Secular historians, such as Josephus, Tacitus and others, would not be expected to write about miracles. It's not likely something they would have experience. But with the apostles, it would be exactly what one would expect. Many godly men, since and before the apostles, have written about miracles that they saw or experienced. It makes sense that men having a personal relationship with the Creator of the universe, men of profound faith, would experience miracles, and therefore write about them.
What Do We Know? That these men that wrote the books and letters of the Bible were honest men. And, that what they wrote, they believed as absolute truth.
Conclusion: The stories these men wrote, every last detail, was exactly what happened.
Non-Bible Corroboration: Both believers and unbelievers that make mention of biblical accounts.
Many men beyond the apostles, both believers and unbelievers, have testified of Jesus and events surrounding his life and death. Beginning with disciples, and disciples of the disciples, of the apostles. There are numerous writings of early church leaders that quote the old and new Testaments, so much so, that it is said that if the Bible were lost, it could be reconstructed from these writings, with the exception of about 15 to 20 versus. The men listed below wrote on their faith in the life, times and claims of Jesus and the apostles, albeit not certain, that all these men were generally of, or remained in, the faith.
- Clement; a disciple of Paul, having lived in the first century, became Bishop of Rome. He was martyred by the Romans, drowned in the Black Sea.
- Ignatius; lived from 35 to 110 A. D. He was a disciple of John and grew to become the Bishop of Antioch. He was martyred by the Romans. He referred to the Scriptures as "authoritative writings."
- Barnabas; was born and lived in the first century, he was a disciple of Paul's and fellow evangelist. The writing attribute to him, the apostle of Barnabas, may not have been written by him. It was probably written after his death, however, it was quoted by Clement, lending it credibility.
- Polycarp; living from 69 to 155 A. D., Disciple of John, became Bishop of Smyrna. He was martyred by the Romans, stabbed to death, when an attempt to burn him alive failed.
- Aristides; wrote the "Apology of Aristides" in the early second century. Writing in support of Christianity, but mostly against the pagan gods, false religions and mythologies.Papias; lived in the late first and early second century's. He became bishop in Hierapolis, modern day Pamukkale, Turkey, near Laodicea and Colossae. He was a disciple of John, toward the end of John's life, and companion of Polycarp.
- Irenaeus; born in the early second century, it is believed in modern-day Turkey. He was raised a Christian. He became a priest of the church in Lyon, eventually becoming bishop. He wrote a lot against, and for correcting, heresies. He recognized Scriptures as "… And established fact, as obvious as the four points of the compass…"
- Mathetes; wrote the "Epistle to Diognetus", as an apologist, defending the Christian faith, sometime in the second century.
- Justin Martyr; appears born at the beginning of the second century. Raised in the ways of Judaism in Ephesus, he converted to Christianity in 130 A. D., and became a teacher of the faith. He later moved to Rome and founded a Christian school. Ultimately, he too fell into opposition to the Roman authorities over his faith and was condemned to death.
- Hippolytus; born around 170 A.D., he became a disciple of Irenaeus, then a presbyter of the church in Rome. He was openly opposed to much of the bastardizing of the Christian faith by the Roman Catholic church, which resulted in him being deported to the island of Sardinia, where he soon died.
- Pantaenus; the Alexandrian philosopher, a teacher in the Alexandrian school, in the late second century.
- Tertulian; a writer and apologist, having lived in the late second and early third century's, was the son of a centurion. He demonstrates a grasp of Roman law, but no indication of having been a jurist. He was pagan until midlife, becoming a priest, only shortly thereafter, to separate from the organized church of Rome, disenchanted with the pagan influence.
- Origen; a Christian scholar and theologian, living from 185 to 254 A.D. He was believed to be an Egyptian who taught in Alexandria.
- Eusebius; a disciple of Origen, having lived in the late second and early third century's. His major work was "History of the Church", a massive piece that preserves quotes from many old writers that would have been lost otherwise. Sadly, having written an account of Constantine's battle at Milvian Bridge, later altered his account regarding an alleged vision of the cross and conversion to Christianity by Constantine, when writing Constantine's biography. There is no evidence of a genuine conversion by Constantine during this battle, or at any time after, illustrated by the fact that not only were no Christian symbols included in the monument that he had constructed to memorialize his victory in this great battle, but it included numerous pagan symbols, paying tribute to his many pagan gods.
- Nicholas Copernicus: Nicholas Copernicus 1473 to 1543 A.D.; from a wealthy family, highly educated, heralded as the first astronomer, never stirred from his Catholic faith or the Bible. His father died when he was 10 to 12 years old and he was raised by his uncle which was a Canon, and later a Bishop of the Catholic Church. Regardless of all his findings, theories and understandings of the cosmos which seem to conflict with the Bible, it never daunted his faith in God.
- Isaac Newton: 1642 to 1727 A.D.; was a frail child, having been born premature. Three years after his father died, before he was born, his mother remarried and left with her husband, a reverend, to live elsewhere, leaving him with his grandmother to raise. This he was bitter about, having threatened "to burn them and the house over them." Despite this, he proved to be an excellent student and became very well educated in mathematics, physics, astronomy, philosophy and theology. Beyond his education and work, in latter years he wrote religious tracts and other writings, dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible. He once stated, "God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."
- Albert Einstein: 1879 to 1955 A.D.; a Jew by race, he attended a Catholic school. Another brilliant student, excelling in the sciences and mathematics. Albeit, he did not accept the God of the Bible, he did indeed believe in a creator god.
- Reference: "Early Christian Writings" (early church fathers) Note: credibility of these writers is best considered by the earlier they live.
- Josephus; was a Jewish historian who lived from 37 to 100 A.D. He was a well educated man of his day. He was in time, captured by Roman soldiers for leading a failed attempt against Roman rule. He ultimately became a Roman citizen. About 93 A.D. he published the "Jewish Antiquities", a history of the Jews. John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth and his brother James, are all mentioned. This is the earliest historian account of Jesus. From the antiquities 20.9.1; "… And brought them the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned…". In 18.3.3 he states, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved temp at the first, did not forsake him, as the divine prophets had foretold these 10,000 other wonderful things concerning him; and the Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."
- Tiberius Caesar; born 42 B.C., died in 37 A.D.; was the second Emperor of Rome. He learned from letters by Pontius Pilate, of the doings of Christos; miracles, resurrection and ascension, belief that he was divine; he even declared it to the Senate of Rome.
- Cornelius Tacitus; was a Roman historian who lived from 56 to 120 A.D. He was born into an aristocratic family and became a senator, counselor, and eventually, governer of Asia. In one of his historic accounts he states, that Nero persecuted Christians, he mentions "Christus" who he acknowledges was put to death by Pontius Pilate. (Annals 15.44.2=8)
- Caius Plinius Caecillus; known as "Pliny the Younger"; was a Roman lawyer, philosopher and author, living from 30 to 113 A.D. He wrote the "Emperor Trajan" from Turkey, about 111 A.D., and in it he assailed the "contagious superstition" of the Christians, reciting a hymn to Christ as God.
- Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus; was a Roman historian. He lived between 40 to 130 A.D. In his work, the "Life of Claudius", he says that the Emperor expelled Romans Jews because they were rioting at the instigation of Christos in 49 A.D., apparently misunderstanding Jewish disputes over belief in the Christ.
- Galen; a famous physician of the second century. He was an unbeliever that makes numerous references about Moses, Christians and Christ.
Most of these men were brilliant thinkers, who were very learned and accomplished in the sciences and reasoning. And yet most, not despite of, but because of, their reasoning and findings, came to believe. They express no doubt that Jesus existed, that he died as recorded on a cross at the order of Pilate; substantiating the faith as a whole, whether by expression of all or some of what was written. All expressed a belief in a creator god. I have been unable to find any evidentiary supported disputation of the primary tenants of Christianity or the writings of the apostles, or any of the "original" Bible for that matter. Again, not all the Bible has been proven true, but none has been proved false.
What We Now Know for Certain? We have proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that there is a creator, that the "original" Bible is true; to a moral, scientific and intellectual certainty. Those being the very standards the world uses every day to discern truth, without question and with full acceptance of their conclusions. We can be assured of nothing less as Christians; that all the "original" Bible is true.
All, or None!
Having proved that all the original Bible is true, we can now see the foolishness, and danger, of parsing and discarding portions, of the inspired word of God; it is blasphemy! As we've proven, the books and letters of the Bible are the oldest, single most, authenticated collection of historical documents known to man. The probability of their truth has been clearly demonstrated. Again, the bottom line is; if you believe any account of a historical event took place, that you were not a witness to, in order to have intellectual integrity, you must believe that the original Bible is true, in its entirety. 2 Timothy 3:16 says that, "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is probable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness."
But, does the same hold true for "Translated Interpretations"? The answer is in the next chapter:
Remember back to "Plan and Design", where the architect developed a precise plan. The success of that plan would depend on the plan being implemented exactly as stated. But imagine, that the architect did not render a precise, fully encompassing plan. What might the outcome of that be? The end result might be a disaster. It would be missing vital components, both aesthetic and structural. It might very well collapse. It could be a matter of life and death! It's chance of success would be minute.
Now imagine, that our Creator did the same thing. Gave us a plan, holding us accountable, yet it was not precise and fully encompassing, or worse, some of it deliberately false. Impossible! He would be a fool. His plan would fail. Because his plan is based on faith / trust. How could we trust in something we did not know to be true. One cannot he assured of becoming or remaining a genuine Christian, if they parse the word of God. There is no faith in it. They certainly cannot be fully empowered to fulfill their role in God's plan, because Romans 10:17 says "faith comes by hearing… the word of God." Either it is all true, or we cannot know if any is. Our salvation depends on it. How could we disbelieve and discard some of Scripture, yet believe what it says about salvation.
Only an unbeliever, the faithless, would accept some portions of the original scriptures as true and discard others as false; or believing some is out dated, doubting that God's word is everlasting as he claims. False teachings have only one purpose, and that is to deceive. God is not a deceiver, "Satan is the father of all lies." If you say that portions of the original scriptures are not true, you are calling God a liar. It is heresy; it is blasphemy! "… With such, do not associate." 1 Timothy 6:3 says, "if any person teaches otherwise, and consents not to wholesome words, especially the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; they are proud and know nothing." In Malachi 2:9 Yehvah scolds the priests saying, "… You have not kept my ways; but have been partial in the law."
What Do We No? That all the "Original Bible" is true.
Conclusion: The "Original Bible" is not only true, but it is the precise and detailed explanation of God.
First, Let's Quiz Chapter One
1) What 20th century discovery is the conclusive scientific proof that evolution, as theorized a Charles Darwin, could not have happened?
2) What was the scientific law used to make this determination?
3) How did the natural universe come into existence?
4) What was the scientific Law used to make this determination?
5) What is therefore, the scientific conclusion of fact?
6) All things that exist have a cause and purpose, and therefore are part of a ________.
7) After 2500 years of intense scrutiny, how many biblical claims or assertions have been proved false?
8) What was one method that Jewish scribes used when copying to ensure that mistakes were not made?
9) How many Greek manuscripts exist containing all or portions of the New Testament?
10) When applying the method of "judicial inquiry" to determine the degree of probability that a historical event took place as written, what is essential that one must bring to the investigation?
2) The Law of Order; which states, that everything that exists in the natural realm came into being by either "natural order", or by "unnatural order".
3) Some "thing" outside this universe moved.
4) The Law of First Cause; which states, in order for some thing to come into existence in the natural realm, some thing must move.
5) The natural universe was created by intelligent design.
8) Counting the letters in each line.
9) Over 5600.
10) A mind free of opinion.