This is something you
may not think much about, but since the Bible makes claims that, if
true, hold eternal consequence, it makes a lot of sense to spend the
necessary time to thoroughly research the arguments and evidence
relating to the Bible. We can treat the Bible much like we treat other
subjects, testing whether its true or not, because the claims in the
Bible are specific, presented by specific people at a specific time and
place. We can take all the evidence surrounding those claims - all the
historical documents, archaeological and scientific information - and
compare it to what's written in the Bible. And the fact that there are
specific prophecies in the Bible on top of that, we can test the Bible
to see if its trustworthy or not. It would be foolish to simply dismiss
it because its extraordinary claims seem unbelievable, or to ignore it;
those extraordinary claims also carry extraordinary significance if
true. If we're reasonable people, we must search out the truth in this
matter because of the importance of it. So here are a few reasons to
believe the Bible, and reasons that reasonable people believe the Bible.
Manuscript evidence
To believe any historical document, there must be sufficient manuscript evidence in the original language the document was written in. The Bible is second to none in this regard, both the Old and New Testaments. There are over 5000 original Greek New Testaments, and over 2000 original Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts. And the early dating of many of these manuscripts is also comparable to none other. A fragment of John's gospel dates back to AD 125, entire books of the New Testament date back to AD 200, and Codex Sinaiticus, a complete copy of the New Testament, dates back to AD 350. In comparison, there is virtually no other ancient historical document whose earliest manuscript dates within 700 years of the original writing. The earliest copy of the Twelve Caesars, by the Roman historian Suetonius, is dated at AD 950, about 800 years after Suetonius originally wrote it. Beyond the shear number of biblical manuscripts and the incredibly early dating compared to other historical documents, there is also the consistency of these manuscripts. For the over 5000 New Testament full and partial manuscripts there is about a 99% internal consistency rate. Combine that rate of consistency with that number of manuscripts to compare against each other, and the case for the Bible's reliability is great.
That's the first reason, because if the Bible we are reading today were in some way different than the one written in history, then the basis of our faith would be flawed. But its not. Even just the casual observer, who reads the Bible, can see that there are many connections in the Bible that could only be by design, and could never be true if textual corruption had happened. Just consider the consistency of Jesus' teachings in the gospels, and the same consistency between that teaching and the teaching of the apostles. There are four different accounts conveying the teachings of Christ to us, and even with four different accounts there is no contradiction. Paul, an apostle of Christ who never even heard Him teach, taught in his letters the exact same stuff that Christ was teaching in His ministry. That is the kind of thing that can only happen by design, and if the text were corrupted, so too would the consistency of the teaching be corrupted.
The cross
At the center of the biblical story is the cross. It is the fundamental act of redemption, and it also happens to be a great point of proof for Christianity. Dying and coming back to life three days later is the greatest miracle Jesus performed. Obviously its a miracle, and its recorded by all gospel writers. A public event that is attested by four independent accounts within decades of the event, as most scholars date the gospels, makes it impossible fiction. Why? Because had the accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection been fabrication, no one would have believed it. Its not like these were written long after the event or in a different location, so certainly there would have been plenty of contemporaries to verify or falsify what they witnessed. Paul even made an astounding claim to the Corinthians, that there were over 500 witnesses of the risen Christ and many still living, which is a claim that the Corinthians could have checked out themselves. The opponents of Christianity, of which there were many, could easily have discounted fictional stories written about supposed events only decades prior. It would be like any one of us writing an account of miracles happenings during the Vietnam War; plenty of skeptics would come forward, and plenty of veterans as well, to easily disprove something that's already hard to believe. But we know for a fact that this is not what happened with the gospel accounts. They were believed by people living in the same location as the events, and only a few decades (possibly just two decades with some of the New Testament books) after the events. And the accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection went on to be the basis of the largest belief system in the world.
So what else might have happened? Could the disciples have stolen the body? With Roman soldiers guarding the tomb, and the disciples being scattered and leaderless, this seems highly unlikely. And it wouldn't account for the numerous witnesses of the resurrected Christ. They claim to have seen an alive Christ, not a dead Christ. Could it be that Jesus swooned on the cross? Only if you think a person can swoon after being beaten, nailed to a cross, pierced with a spear, and then have the strength to uncover himself from the burial wrappings and roll back a massive stone from the inside of a tomb. Its much more reasonable to believe the miracle. Could the Romans have made up some story? Why would they? They were enemies of Christianity and enemies of Israel, and the last thing they wanted was another radical belief system to contend with. And had the disciples made up a story, why would they have gone to their own deaths defending it? Sometimes a person will die for a lie, but never does a person die for a lie that they themselves came up with. All of the remaining eleven disciples and Paul died a martyrs death, except for John, who was exiled to Patmos.
The prophecies
This is a test that anyone with a Bible can perform. Find at least one of the many prophecies in the Bible, something that has been fulfilled, and see if it can be proven to originate before the fulfillment of it. If its something specific and not enigmatic, then you have real proof that the prophecy is of supernatural origin. Take this for example: In Daniel 11 there is a prophecy about kings of the south and kings of the north, which perfectly describes the battles between the Ptolemy dynasty in the south and the Seleucid dynasty in the north. We know that the Ptolemies and Seleucids were fighting in the third century BC, and we know that much of Daniel was discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which dates to around the same time period. Its reasonable to assume that the original writing of Daniel occurred centuries before those earliest manuscripts, and Daniel's understanding of Babylonian culture also gives us good reason to place him in that time period. That would make for a specific prophecy, fulfilled and reasonably originated before its fulfillment. That's just one; Daniel, by itself, has more. Psalm 22, Isaiah 9, Isaiah 53, Zechariah 11:12-13 and Ezekiel 26 are a few more examples. If a person wants to go crazy with it (because studying prophecies is indeed a lot of fun), he can find plenty of examples where Old Testament prophecies line up perfectly with New Testament prophecies - prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled, like much of the stuff in Revelation.
These are a few of the reasons that you will find many reasonable people putting their faith in Christ. Its not some blind dogma that atheists would like you to think it is. Research it for yourself, study it out like you would study anything else. I didn't even get to the mountain of archaeological evidence confirming many details in the Bible.
Manuscript evidence
To believe any historical document, there must be sufficient manuscript evidence in the original language the document was written in. The Bible is second to none in this regard, both the Old and New Testaments. There are over 5000 original Greek New Testaments, and over 2000 original Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts. And the early dating of many of these manuscripts is also comparable to none other. A fragment of John's gospel dates back to AD 125, entire books of the New Testament date back to AD 200, and Codex Sinaiticus, a complete copy of the New Testament, dates back to AD 350. In comparison, there is virtually no other ancient historical document whose earliest manuscript dates within 700 years of the original writing. The earliest copy of the Twelve Caesars, by the Roman historian Suetonius, is dated at AD 950, about 800 years after Suetonius originally wrote it. Beyond the shear number of biblical manuscripts and the incredibly early dating compared to other historical documents, there is also the consistency of these manuscripts. For the over 5000 New Testament full and partial manuscripts there is about a 99% internal consistency rate. Combine that rate of consistency with that number of manuscripts to compare against each other, and the case for the Bible's reliability is great.
That's the first reason, because if the Bible we are reading today were in some way different than the one written in history, then the basis of our faith would be flawed. But its not. Even just the casual observer, who reads the Bible, can see that there are many connections in the Bible that could only be by design, and could never be true if textual corruption had happened. Just consider the consistency of Jesus' teachings in the gospels, and the same consistency between that teaching and the teaching of the apostles. There are four different accounts conveying the teachings of Christ to us, and even with four different accounts there is no contradiction. Paul, an apostle of Christ who never even heard Him teach, taught in his letters the exact same stuff that Christ was teaching in His ministry. That is the kind of thing that can only happen by design, and if the text were corrupted, so too would the consistency of the teaching be corrupted.
The cross
At the center of the biblical story is the cross. It is the fundamental act of redemption, and it also happens to be a great point of proof for Christianity. Dying and coming back to life three days later is the greatest miracle Jesus performed. Obviously its a miracle, and its recorded by all gospel writers. A public event that is attested by four independent accounts within decades of the event, as most scholars date the gospels, makes it impossible fiction. Why? Because had the accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection been fabrication, no one would have believed it. Its not like these were written long after the event or in a different location, so certainly there would have been plenty of contemporaries to verify or falsify what they witnessed. Paul even made an astounding claim to the Corinthians, that there were over 500 witnesses of the risen Christ and many still living, which is a claim that the Corinthians could have checked out themselves. The opponents of Christianity, of which there were many, could easily have discounted fictional stories written about supposed events only decades prior. It would be like any one of us writing an account of miracles happenings during the Vietnam War; plenty of skeptics would come forward, and plenty of veterans as well, to easily disprove something that's already hard to believe. But we know for a fact that this is not what happened with the gospel accounts. They were believed by people living in the same location as the events, and only a few decades (possibly just two decades with some of the New Testament books) after the events. And the accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection went on to be the basis of the largest belief system in the world.
So what else might have happened? Could the disciples have stolen the body? With Roman soldiers guarding the tomb, and the disciples being scattered and leaderless, this seems highly unlikely. And it wouldn't account for the numerous witnesses of the resurrected Christ. They claim to have seen an alive Christ, not a dead Christ. Could it be that Jesus swooned on the cross? Only if you think a person can swoon after being beaten, nailed to a cross, pierced with a spear, and then have the strength to uncover himself from the burial wrappings and roll back a massive stone from the inside of a tomb. Its much more reasonable to believe the miracle. Could the Romans have made up some story? Why would they? They were enemies of Christianity and enemies of Israel, and the last thing they wanted was another radical belief system to contend with. And had the disciples made up a story, why would they have gone to their own deaths defending it? Sometimes a person will die for a lie, but never does a person die for a lie that they themselves came up with. All of the remaining eleven disciples and Paul died a martyrs death, except for John, who was exiled to Patmos.
The prophecies
This is a test that anyone with a Bible can perform. Find at least one of the many prophecies in the Bible, something that has been fulfilled, and see if it can be proven to originate before the fulfillment of it. If its something specific and not enigmatic, then you have real proof that the prophecy is of supernatural origin. Take this for example: In Daniel 11 there is a prophecy about kings of the south and kings of the north, which perfectly describes the battles between the Ptolemy dynasty in the south and the Seleucid dynasty in the north. We know that the Ptolemies and Seleucids were fighting in the third century BC, and we know that much of Daniel was discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which dates to around the same time period. Its reasonable to assume that the original writing of Daniel occurred centuries before those earliest manuscripts, and Daniel's understanding of Babylonian culture also gives us good reason to place him in that time period. That would make for a specific prophecy, fulfilled and reasonably originated before its fulfillment. That's just one; Daniel, by itself, has more. Psalm 22, Isaiah 9, Isaiah 53, Zechariah 11:12-13 and Ezekiel 26 are a few more examples. If a person wants to go crazy with it (because studying prophecies is indeed a lot of fun), he can find plenty of examples where Old Testament prophecies line up perfectly with New Testament prophecies - prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled, like much of the stuff in Revelation.
These are a few of the reasons that you will find many reasonable people putting their faith in Christ. Its not some blind dogma that atheists would like you to think it is. Research it for yourself, study it out like you would study anything else. I didn't even get to the mountain of archaeological evidence confirming many details in the Bible.
No comments:
Post a Comment