You can proof to someone that the Bible and God are real, but that doesn't make them believe. Now with that said, read on.1
Alrighty then! You say there is no god...no evidence that the bible is real...2
Now I'm sure you know that for a historical document to be considered accurate it has to pass the internal test, the external test, and the bibliographic test; right? So let's see if and how the Bible passes these tests. In the end then if the Bible passes these tests the Bible is true and if it doesn't then it is not true. 3
The internal test is used to see if the document contradicts itself.4
A classic example of the bible contradicting itself is in the book of Acts. in Acts 9:7, the Bible says that "The men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." However, Acts 22:9 says, "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of Him that spake to me."5
At first glance it seems to be a contradiction. Did the men with Paul hear a voice or not? The New Testament was written in Greek so lets go back and look a little. In each passage, the Greek word akouo is translated as the verb "to hear." In Greek, however, when verbs are constructed in different cases, their meanings change.
In Acts 9:7, akouo is constructed in the genitive case, whereas in Acts 22:9, the accusative case is used. When this word is used genitively, it implies only that sounds were heard, not understood; However, when constructed in the accusative case, the word implies that speech was both heard and understood. In English, we use the same construction for both cases. So here we see that a detailed look at the passage yields no contradiction at all.6
Do controversial passages like this keep the Bible from passing the internal test? If they did, then no ancient work of history would pass. It turns out that all ancient works have a few difficult passages that are hard to reconcile with each other. If such a situation is not conclusively proven to be a contradiction, then historians label it a "difficulty." When applying the internal test to ancient documents, historians mist follow Aristotle's Dictum.7
Aristotle's Dictum- The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not assigned by the critic to himself.8
Thus, a contradiction must be conclusively a contradiction in order for a document to fail the internal test. Since this is not conclusively a contradiction but most likely a problem with translation, this does not cause the Bible to fail the internal test.9
If you want I can choose other passages from scripture and do the same thing as above.10
The external test-this test determines whether or not the document contradicts any "external" sources of historical fact. If other histories of the time exist, then the document in question must be consistent with them. In addition to other accepted historical texts, the document in question must also be consistent with any archaeological discoveries for that time period. The more archaeological facts that support the document, the better the document passes the external test.11
In his major work; Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman, mentions the existence of Christ and his death by Pontius Pilate, in perfect agreement with the accounts written in the Bible. He also mentions certain cities and rulers which are also discussed in the Bible. In each case, Tacitus's reports are consistent with those of the New Testament. By the way it's important to note that Tacitus was not a Christian.12
Another well-respected, non-Christian historian of the day was Flavius Josephus. Josephus was a Jew who wrote a history of the Jewish people in attempt to create better feelings between the Romans and the Jews. In his major work, Jewish Antiquities, he not only mentions Christ's death at the order of Pontius Pilate, but also mentions Christ's resurrection! 13
Here is a quote from the 33rd verse of the 18th chapter of Jewish Antiquities:14
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; For he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many Jews, and also many of the Greeks. This man was the Christ. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, upon his impeachment by the Principal man among us, those who had loved him from the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive on the third day, the divine prophets having spoken these and thousands of other wonderful things about him. An even now, the race of Christians, so named from him, has not died out."15
Now it is very important to note that Josephus was NOT a Christian. He was a Jew that stayed devoted to Judaism. Thus, he was not tying to make Christianity "look good" in his work. Instead, he was reporting what he considered historical fact at the time.16
Consider the case of The Pavement, where the passage in John 19:13 says Christ was tried before Pilate. Prior to about 1950, there was no archaeological confirmation of such a place; Thus, many archaeologists believed that it never really existed. In 1960, however, William F. Albright demonstrated that The Pavement was the court of the tower of Antonia, the headquarters of the Roman military. The reason it had not been discovered before was that it had been buried during one of the times that Jerusalem had been rebuilt, and had not been uncovered until the then.17
Based on the weight of the somewhat fragmentary historical evidence and the overwhelming amount of archaeological evidence, we can say without question that the Bible passes the external test. In fact, more archaeological attention has been paid to the Bible than any other source of ancient history. We can therefore say that the Bible passes the external test better than any other source of ancient history!18
Again there is more archaeological evidence for the bible. I am just using an example or two.19
The bibliographic test tries to determine whether or not the copies we have today are really true to the original.20
Now remember, in order for a document to pass the bibliographic test, there must be a relatively short amount of time between copy and original, and there must be several copies made by different people.21
The New Testament is supported by over 24,000 different copies, the earliest of which was written a mere 25 years after the original! The differences between the 24,000 copies are trivial, indicating that the New Testament we have today is completely faithful to the original text. The New Testament passes the bibliographic test better than any other historical work of its time.22
Hey, wait a minute what about the Old Testament? 23
In 1947 the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered. These scrolls contain copies of parts of at least 500 ancient books. One of the scrolls contained a complete copy of the Old Testament book of Isaiah. The scroll was dated by archaeologist as having been written in 125 B.C. This version of Isaiah proved to be word for word identical with the standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95% of the text. The 5% of variation consisted mostly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling. In over 1,000 years, then, the book of Isaiah(and presumably the rest of the Old Testament) was copied faithfully.24
In the end, then, the Bible passes the bibliographic test better than any other work of ancient history. Thus, we can be sure that the Bible which we read today is faithful to the original eyewitness accounts. Combine that with the fact that the Bible passes the internal test just as well as any ancient document of history and that it passes the external test better than any document of its time, and you come to the scientific conclusion that the stories and accounts in the Bible are more trustworthy than any of the other accounts we have about the Roman Empire and other facets of ancient life!25
Well, perhaps it might be hard to swallow for some, but there is ample reason to believe the Bible is true. First of all, if you choose not to believe the most historically valid document of that time period, then it is awfully hard to understand how you can believe any history that we currently know. After all, the same historical test that are used to evaluate all other works of history tell us that the Bible is, by far, the most reliable. If you start deciding to reject parts of Biblical history, then you have really departed from the science of history and are more of less making up the rules as you go.
A contest entry
- Freedom of Voice by Mag the Chodja.
350 points, ended May 7, 14 entries
Honorable mention
• next story in this contest, remove from contest - Writers Fourteen Or Under Only - 3 by Andy Stephenson.
175 points, ended May 13, 6 entries
Bronze trophy winner
• next story in this contest, remove from contest
Comments
1 - 12 of 12
-
Hmm?
You mention one book from the Old Testament which was copied with 95% accuracy, this does not mean that its content is accurate, just that it was copied with 95% accuracy. From this you postulate that all of the forty or so books of the Old Testament are true, when you having supported the content of the book you mentioned.
Both the Acts of the Apostles and the history recorded by Josephus are not eye witness accounts. Yet on the basis of these two accounts, you suggest that the entire contents of the New Testament are true.
Hmm?
Well I suggest 'discerning the spirits'(searching for the truth). I'm something of a student of religion and in relation to the Bible I agree that much of it is true, I also believe there is much that is myth. More importantly is this: How much of it is relevant?
Jesus is credited with saying that it comes down to two things: Loving God and loving others. By doing so, one obeys all the law. I say something slightly different: Love yourself first. Failing to do so is failing to respect God or yourself. Love others next. They need your love more than does God. Last, of course, love God.
I consider that relevant. Most of the rest of the Bible is just a way to pass the time.
This is an essay, not really a story. Thanks for entering Writers Fourteen Or Under Only - 3.
Andy
-
I liked this article. I saw something by a Christian version of Myth Busters do this, it was really good. But you've covered it just as well. Something you might like to add is the number of original texts by people like, Julius Caesar, and how long it was till they were rediscovered. I think there was something like seven by him, not discovered til 500 years after he died, and people don't doubt what he said. Those numbers aren't bang on, but basically what he was saying is there were (as you pointed out) quite a few copies of the Bible pretty soon.
So yes, very good, and well done for your age! It was comprehensive, well thought out, and thorough. Not to mention easy to understand.
-
Wow. Are you really 13? *eyes you suspiciously*
Well spoken for a young'un, I must say. Very valid points, and you went about the presentation with a scientific aire. Kept it civil. Very rare to find in a Christian.
I do have to disagree about proving God, though (prove, not proof, by the way). Unless we were to find God chillin' in front of the tv with Showtime, catchin' the credits of Dexter while kickin' back a bottle of Bud, (or...ya know...just his -presence- in general xD) then there's no adamant proof that He exists. Despite that, people will still believe. That's what Faith is all about. The rest of the populace will continue to be skeptical, even if the historical facts of the Bible are true. It's, like, "Yeah, ok, Jesus was real. How do we know he's actually the son of God and not chewin' shrooms?" Stuff like that.
Contradictions will be found throughout the scriptures because they weren't written by God, Himself, but by mortal men. Which can usually be overlooked as small indifferences. Most 'books' of the Bible are written accounts in the perspective of the desciples and whatnot, which will hold some historical credit. They've already proven many historical events in the Bible, so there's no arguing that. What people -do- argue are the tales within, such as Jonah and the Whale. Those are the debatory counters ya gotta keep in mind.
Despite that, this was very informative. I actually learned a bit from this, and you should feel proud about it. ^^
I'd suggest spell check, though, or combing through this with grammar in mind. There were a few slip-ups in word usage, as well as punctuation and capitalization.
Thank you for entering my contest, I appreciate it.
-
-
actually the scriptures were written by God through man. if you really care...I understand what you're saying though with everything....thanks
-
-
So... if the scriptures were written by God through man, and God's perfect, what's with the translation error? Surely, if God was so mighty, he wouldn't have made a single mistake... wouldn't he? And could you at least challenge, the eveloution theory? I'm afraid it's going to take much more than this to convince me...
-
-
Meanin', he inspired men what to write (he doesn't do that anymore, that stopped in the Bible times, he said he doesn't do it anymore (exact passage forgotten, but can be found)), he didn't take hold of the pen and write it himself. God did not make humans to be robots, he gave us brains and free will. Could go on for awhile about that, but the point being: Humans make mistakes. God does not control our lives, he lets us make choices, and we make bad ones, and we make mistakes. Slips of the pen happen, grammar fails now and then, but for a book so big, and with so many copies done (by hand) the number of mistakes in it is miniscule.
On Evolution, I myself can't prove that it false, because I haven't studied the field for some time, but I know of plenty of people who can. Including NON-Christian scientists. For example Dr. Ariel A. Roth, he's got a B.A. in Biology from Pacific Union College, a Master's in biology and a Ph.D. in zoology in the University of Michigan. He has taken additional training in geology, mathematics and radiation biology at various campuses of the University of California. He is also a former director of Geoscience Research Institute in Loma Linda, California. And much, much more. In otherwords, more qualified then I bet most people on here in the way of nature. And one of the things he says when asked why he doubts evolution is:
"First, evolution does not even seem to be true. It requires a tremendous acceptance of one incident of extreme good luck after another to even imagine that life arose all by itself and then even more implausible improbabilities to evolve to advanced forms such as humans. Christians should not advocate error. Our knowledge of physics, chemistry, and probability dictates that the evolutionary scenario is essentially impossible."
~ Ariel Roth - Creation Magazine, Vol. 31 No. 2, March - May 2009.
That article goes on for another two pages where he gives out many examples for why evolution doesn't work. I can probably find some way of getting it to you if you want to read the rest.
That is just one example of a non-christian proving what we say. -
-
So he inspired men to write, and doesn't do it anymore!? Was it a coincidence that people wrote these Bibles, when stuff actually happened!? So, if god were to perform a new miracle, there would be no way of documenting it!? And apparantly god gives us free will, but he also has a Divine Plan, what sort of free will is that!?
And that man, Ariel Roth, seems to have no grasp of eveloution whatsoever. It took millions upon billions of years for us to evolve once. It's not something which requires probability. We're still evolving to this day! Who knows, if mankind survives for another few billion years, we may evolve into something else!
-
-
-
-
-
Oops, forgot this was for fourteen and younger!
-
Yep, but this is all about the New Testament. No offence, but is there anything to support the Old Testament?
There never will be because there were no witnesses to creation. Adam and Eve are long dead, and as far as I know, there are no historical records of any of their descendants. However your research is laudable, are you a historian? -
-
hmm....I guess I didn't really say as much as I should have about the Old Testament besides the Dead Sea scroll, proving Issiah is true. I see what I can find for the Old Testament. haha, I'm only 13, did this for science.
-
-
This proves to be an interesting discussion,
but I see little real proof to support creation or evolution. Existence we clearly have. In my view, God is all and is in all. I don't really see much relevant in this arguement to our existence whether we were created or we evolved. We're here, aren't we? Isn't that what really matters? It's unlikely we'll ever know how it all came about.
Andy
-
-
Meh...I count myself as an Aethiest, mostly because I'm not really either. I concede that God MAY have existed, but I don't believe that he DID. I can't really argue against you, seeing as I havent bothered to read the bible since I was little and only interested in the exciting parts like people being eaten by whales XD. Anyway, great article, you obviously put a lot of time and thought into this. Its nice to meet a serious Christian who isnt scary crazy about it...I have been verbally attacked several times for stating my views on the matter. Wonderful job, I'm your age, and i probably couldn't (or wouldnt) do something like that, mostly because I'm terrible at research.
-
-
-
Adding your comment:
1 - 12 of 12
