The Bible, just PARTof why I believe… (545)
online today!online today!Conrad73Zurich, Switzerland204 Threads 6 Polls 59,471 PostsStressFree: Truer words have never been spoken
------ This thread is Archived ------
Is Islam correct? Is the Bible corrupted?
Has the Bible changed and altered over time? Have the Jews changed or concealed portions of the Torah? Is the Bible full of contradictions and discrepancies?
Muslims have long asserted that the Christian In this article the author notes three such allegations and outline a response to each.
Has the Bible changed and altered over time? Have the Jews changed or concealed portions of the Torah? Is the Bible full of contradictions and discrepancies?
Muslims have long asserted that the Christian Bible is swarming with errors and contradictions. They say that it is not reliable. Islamic attacks on the Bible are numerous and varied. Here I note three such allegations and outline a response to each.
Islamic Allegation #1
The Bible has changed or altered over time.
Christians have a firm foundation for confidence in the unchanging text of both Testaments. Not only is there a super-abundance of 5,664 Greek manuscripts from which the original wording of New Testament books can be determined; there are also 18,000 other manuscripts in several other languages, e.g., Armenian, Latin Vulgate, Ethiopic, and more.
It is rare for secular books of antiquity to have as many as even a dozen ancient manuscripts. Typically their best copies date about 700-1000 years after the date of composition. By contrast, there are complete papyrus manuscripts of many entire New Testament books that date from a mere 100 years after the originals. One papyrus scrap of John 18 has been dated to as early as 115 A.D., just 25 years after John was written!
Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director of the British Museum, said that…
“in no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament.”
Based on his findings, he concluded:
"The last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed."
For more information about the interesting findings of Bible archaeology, see ChristianAnswers.Net/archaeology
Has the Bible changed and altered over time? Have the Jews changed or concealed portions of the Torah? Is the Bible full of contradictions and discrepancies?
Muslims have long asserted that the Christian In this article the author notes three such allegations and outline a response to each.
Has the Bible changed and altered over time? Have the Jews changed or concealed portions of the Torah? Is the Bible full of contradictions and discrepancies?
Muslims have long asserted that the Christian Bible is swarming with errors and contradictions. They say that it is not reliable. Islamic attacks on the Bible are numerous and varied. Here I note three such allegations and outline a response to each.
Islamic Allegation #1
The Bible has changed or altered over time.
Christians have a firm foundation for confidence in the unchanging text of both Testaments. Not only is there a super-abundance of 5,664 Greek manuscripts from which the original wording of New Testament books can be determined; there are also 18,000 other manuscripts in several other languages, e.g., Armenian, Latin Vulgate, Ethiopic, and more.
It is rare for secular books of antiquity to have as many as even a dozen ancient manuscripts. Typically their best copies date about 700-1000 years after the date of composition. By contrast, there are complete papyrus manuscripts of many entire New Testament books that date from a mere 100 years after the originals. One papyrus scrap of John 18 has been dated to as early as 115 A.D., just 25 years after John was written!
Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director of the British Museum, said that…
“in no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament.”
Based on his findings, he concluded:
"The last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed."
For more information about the interesting findings of Bible archaeology, see ChristianAnswers.Net/archaeology
------ This thread is Archived ------
Islamic Allegation #2:
The Jews have changed or "concealed" portions of the Torah (Old Testament).
This charge of "change," sometimes called "harrafa," is extremely far-fetched. It flies in the face of clear evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in 1948.
Before 1948, the oldest complete Hebrew manuscript dated to 900 A.D. The Dead Sea discoveries brought shocking news. A complete scroll of Isaiah was found, which is dated to about 100 B.C. With one stroke, we leaped 1000 years deeper into the past, in terms of the oldest known copy of Isaiah!
It gets interesting at this point, since scholars can see how well the Massoretic copiers had preserved the Old Testament text. As scholars compared the two Isaiah texts (from 900 A.D. & 100 B.C.), they were startled by the precision of copying.
Isaiah 53, for example, has 166 words, and there are only 17 letters that differ. Ten are just spelling differences. Four are "minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions." The three remaining letters that differ are the word "light," added in verse 11, which does not affect the meaning.
As Geisler and Nix pointed out,
"Thus in one chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission—and this word does not significantly change the meaning of the passage."
[For further reading, see: What is the importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls? (ChristianAnswers.Net)]
What's more, many dozens of verses in the Qur'an allude to the fact that the true "Torah" was not distorted; it was in the possession of John the Baptist, Mary, Jesus, and His disciples.
"According to the Qur'an, God or Muhammad under God's orders, appealed to the Torah and the Gospel more than 20 times… Muhammad asks the Jews to bring the Torah to settle a dispute. People 'read' the Torah and the Gospel which are 'with them'."
Islamic Allegation #3:
Contradictions and Biblical discrepancies undermine any confidence in the Bible.
Finally, Muslims point out so-called contradictions between parallel verses, such as when genealogies of the same lineage diverge, or when numbers of people in census lists do not correspond, or when the parallel account in the synoptic gospels differ slightly.
A few of the Old Testament numerical discrepancies are in all likelihood due to inadvertent copiest errors. On the other hand, most "discrepancies" of substance are easily handled by employing exegetical common sense.
For example, it actually enhances the credibility of Biblical accounts (such as the synoptic parallels) when slightly different patterns of facts are described. If they were just "invented" (possibly in collusion) or "copied," there would be no difference at all!
For example, it actually enhances the credibility of Biblical accounts (such as the synoptic parallels) when slightly different patterns of facts are described. If they were just "invented" (possibly in collusion) or "copied," there would be no difference at all!
The Jews have changed or "concealed" portions of the Torah (Old Testament).
This charge of "change," sometimes called "harrafa," is extremely far-fetched. It flies in the face of clear evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in 1948.
Before 1948, the oldest complete Hebrew manuscript dated to 900 A.D. The Dead Sea discoveries brought shocking news. A complete scroll of Isaiah was found, which is dated to about 100 B.C. With one stroke, we leaped 1000 years deeper into the past, in terms of the oldest known copy of Isaiah!
It gets interesting at this point, since scholars can see how well the Massoretic copiers had preserved the Old Testament text. As scholars compared the two Isaiah texts (from 900 A.D. & 100 B.C.), they were startled by the precision of copying.
Isaiah 53, for example, has 166 words, and there are only 17 letters that differ. Ten are just spelling differences. Four are "minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions." The three remaining letters that differ are the word "light," added in verse 11, which does not affect the meaning.
As Geisler and Nix pointed out,
"Thus in one chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission—and this word does not significantly change the meaning of the passage."
[For further reading, see: What is the importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls? (ChristianAnswers.Net)]
What's more, many dozens of verses in the Qur'an allude to the fact that the true "Torah" was not distorted; it was in the possession of John the Baptist, Mary, Jesus, and His disciples.
"According to the Qur'an, God or Muhammad under God's orders, appealed to the Torah and the Gospel more than 20 times… Muhammad asks the Jews to bring the Torah to settle a dispute. People 'read' the Torah and the Gospel which are 'with them'."
Islamic Allegation #3:
Contradictions and Biblical discrepancies undermine any confidence in the Bible.
Finally, Muslims point out so-called contradictions between parallel verses, such as when genealogies of the same lineage diverge, or when numbers of people in census lists do not correspond, or when the parallel account in the synoptic gospels differ slightly.
A few of the Old Testament numerical discrepancies are in all likelihood due to inadvertent copiest errors. On the other hand, most "discrepancies" of substance are easily handled by employing exegetical common sense.
For example, it actually enhances the credibility of Biblical accounts (such as the synoptic parallels) when slightly different patterns of facts are described. If they were just "invented" (possibly in collusion) or "copied," there would be no difference at all!
For example, it actually enhances the credibility of Biblical accounts (such as the synoptic parallels) when slightly different patterns of facts are described. If they were just "invented" (possibly in collusion) or "copied," there would be no difference at all!
------ This thread is Archived ------
THE BIBLE ALWAYS PASSES THE TEST
Wayne Jackson, M.A.
The Bible contains two kinds of information. Some
of it can be checked; some of it cannot. For example, it
is not possible to .check. scientifically the accuracy of
Genesis 1:1..In the beginning God created the heavens
and the earth.. While the affirmation is not inconsistent
in any way with available scientific data, at the
sametime the statement is one ofprehumanhistory, and
thus does not lend itself to empirical investigation.
On the other hand, the Scriptures contain hundreds
of references that arise out of the background of human
history.These may be tested for accuracy. If it is the case
that the Bible is demonstrated to be precise in its thousands
of historical details, it is not unreasonable to conclude
that its information in other matters is equally correct.
In fact, one of the most amazing features of the Bible
is its uncanny reliability in the smallest of details. Let
us note a few examples of biblical precision.
On one occasion during His personal ministry, Jesus
passed through the region of Samaria. Near Sychar,
the Lord stopped for a brief rest at Jacob.s well. While
there,Heengaged a Samaritanwomanin a conversation,
during whichHesuggested thatHecould provide thewomanwithwater
that could quench her thirst perpetually.
Misunderstanding the nature of theMaster.s instruction,
thewoman,alluding to Jacob.s well, declared: .Sir,you
have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. (John
4:11). Her statementwas quite correct, for even now, some
twenty centuries later, Jacob.s well is approximately 80
feet deep.the equivalent of an eight-story building!
Reflect upon another example. In Acts 10 there is the
account of Peter.s visit to the city of Joppa.Luke declared
that Peterwas staying in the home of Simon, a tanner of
animal hides. Then the historian said, almost as an afterthought,
.whose house is by the seaside. (Acts 10:6).
Hugh J. Schonfield, author of the infamous book, The
Passover Plot (and certainly no friend of Christianity),
has commented as follows on this passage: .This is an
interesting factual detail, because the tanners used sea
water in the process of converting hides into leather.The
skins were soaked in the sea and then treated with lime
before the hair was scraped off..
Consider another interesting case ofBible precision.
WhenPaulwas en route toRomefor trial, the ship upon
which he sailed became involved in a terrible storm.When
it eventually became apparent that the vessel was in a
very dangerous circumstance, the crew cast the ship.s
anchors into the water. At the same time, they .loosed
the rudder bands, hoisted up the foresail, and aimed the
ship towards the beach. (Acts 27:40). There is an interesting
and subtle point in the Greek text that is not apparent
in theKing JamesVersion. The original language
actually says that they .loosed the bands of the rudders.
(plural). This is amazingly precise, for in ancient times
ships actually possessed two paddle-rudders, not a single
rudder aswith modern vessels. In 1969, a submerged
ancient ship was discovered in the Mediterranean Sea
off the coast of Cyprus.An examination of the ruins gave
evidence of dual rudder-oars by which the boatwas steered
(see National Geographic, November 1974, pp. 618-
625), thus demonstrating the remarkable accuracy of
Luke.s record.
TheBible can be tested.historically,geographically,
scientifically, etc. And it always passes the test. Its incredible
accuracy can be explained only in light of its
divine inspiration.
Wayne Jackson, M.A.
The Bible contains two kinds of information. Some
of it can be checked; some of it cannot. For example, it
is not possible to .check. scientifically the accuracy of
Genesis 1:1..In the beginning God created the heavens
and the earth.. While the affirmation is not inconsistent
in any way with available scientific data, at the
sametime the statement is one ofprehumanhistory, and
thus does not lend itself to empirical investigation.
On the other hand, the Scriptures contain hundreds
of references that arise out of the background of human
history.These may be tested for accuracy. If it is the case
that the Bible is demonstrated to be precise in its thousands
of historical details, it is not unreasonable to conclude
that its information in other matters is equally correct.
In fact, one of the most amazing features of the Bible
is its uncanny reliability in the smallest of details. Let
us note a few examples of biblical precision.
On one occasion during His personal ministry, Jesus
passed through the region of Samaria. Near Sychar,
the Lord stopped for a brief rest at Jacob.s well. While
there,Heengaged a Samaritanwomanin a conversation,
during whichHesuggested thatHecould provide thewomanwithwater
that could quench her thirst perpetually.
Misunderstanding the nature of theMaster.s instruction,
thewoman,alluding to Jacob.s well, declared: .Sir,you
have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. (John
4:11). Her statementwas quite correct, for even now, some
twenty centuries later, Jacob.s well is approximately 80
feet deep.the equivalent of an eight-story building!
Reflect upon another example. In Acts 10 there is the
account of Peter.s visit to the city of Joppa.Luke declared
that Peterwas staying in the home of Simon, a tanner of
animal hides. Then the historian said, almost as an afterthought,
.whose house is by the seaside. (Acts 10:6).
Hugh J. Schonfield, author of the infamous book, The
Passover Plot (and certainly no friend of Christianity),
has commented as follows on this passage: .This is an
interesting factual detail, because the tanners used sea
water in the process of converting hides into leather.The
skins were soaked in the sea and then treated with lime
before the hair was scraped off..
Consider another interesting case ofBible precision.
WhenPaulwas en route toRomefor trial, the ship upon
which he sailed became involved in a terrible storm.When
it eventually became apparent that the vessel was in a
very dangerous circumstance, the crew cast the ship.s
anchors into the water. At the same time, they .loosed
the rudder bands, hoisted up the foresail, and aimed the
ship towards the beach. (Acts 27:40). There is an interesting
and subtle point in the Greek text that is not apparent
in theKing JamesVersion. The original language
actually says that they .loosed the bands of the rudders.
(plural). This is amazingly precise, for in ancient times
ships actually possessed two paddle-rudders, not a single
rudder aswith modern vessels. In 1969, a submerged
ancient ship was discovered in the Mediterranean Sea
off the coast of Cyprus.An examination of the ruins gave
evidence of dual rudder-oars by which the boatwas steered
(see National Geographic, November 1974, pp. 618-
625), thus demonstrating the remarkable accuracy of
Luke.s record.
TheBible can be tested.historically,geographically,
scientifically, etc. And it always passes the test. Its incredible
accuracy can be explained only in light of its
divine inspiration.
------ This thread is Archived ------
We believe you believe. 
------ This thread is Archived ------
Evanese: We believe you believe.
Thank you.
------ This thread is Archived ------
GOT INTIMACY?
------ This thread is Archived ------
HealthyLiving: GOT INTIMACY?
Jacob really longed to be a hero
All I really wanted was a friend
I'm the way, the life, the truth
So tell Me Jacob when will the lying end?
And does the striving make you strong?
Because when I came to love on you
You fought me till the dawn
Finally Jacob's lying down
And while he sleeps I will dream
Of a generation not known for their crowns,
Or success, but a King...
Who was not so much as interested in crowds, or
Pleasing men, but knowing Me
I have given Jacob's generation the key of David, intimacy
To open up the doorway to the nations, and release
Revelation, of intimacy, with me
Jacob had a dream for all the ages
Jacob had a drive to build a nation
But the fighting is in vain
If your only aim is to build your own great name
Because My dream's not what you do
Jacob will you dream for me
The way that I have dreamed for you
I have given Jacob's generation the key of David, intimacy
To open up the doorway to the nations, and release
Revelation, of intimacy, with me
Jacob's Dream by Jason Upton
------ This thread is Archived ------
The bible is a book of ignorance!written by ignorant men in a time if ignorance.The bible knows no more than a ignorant man of the time.That is the bible knows nothing of computers and Ipods or the dinosaurs.It is easy to proove that story,s such as Noahs ark are impossible,the familly tree of the average mamal is about 1.5 million years old.This means that for Noahs ark to be true it happened 1.5 million years ago.Are you going to try and tell me now that Noah was around building boats then?.I have been an Atheist since 6 years of age.I have challenged god insulted him done everything I could to arouse such a beast if it existed.There has never been any response.either god is gutless,afraid,scared and too frightened to tackle me,or he doesn,t exist.I like the old saying"a stitch in time saves nine","many a slip twixed cup and lip"etc and I would like to ad one of my own"you can call yourself a grown up when you have faced your own motality".We are surounded by children,until you see religion as a fairy tail,you are still a child!
------ This thread is Archived ------
For Crying out loud,stop beating each other over the Head with other People's Thoughts!!!!!!!!!!
------ This thread is Archived ------
Biblical Archaeology - Silencing the Critics - Part 1
By Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon
Significantly, even liberal theologians, secular academics, and critics generally cannot deny that archaeology has confirmed the biblical record at many points. Rationalistic detractors of the Bible can attack it all day long, but they cannot dispute archaeological facts. Consider the weekly PBS series "Mysteries of the Bible." Despite some shortcomings, such as the theologically liberal experts and non-Christian commentators, this program has offered example after example, week after week, of the archaeological reliability of the Bible.
To further illustrate, probably the three greatest American archaeologists of the twentieth century each had their liberal training modified by their archaeological work. W. F. Albright, Nelson Glueck, and George Ernest Wright all "received training in the liberal scholarship of the day, which had resulted from the earlier and continuing critical study of the Bible, predominantly by German scholars."1 Despite their liberal training, it was archaeological research that bolstered their confidence in the biblical text:
Albright said of himself, "I must admit that I tried to be rational and empirical in my approach we all have presuppositions of a philosophical order." The same statement could be applied as easily to Gleuck and Wright, for all three were deeply imbued with the theological perceptions which infused their work. Albright, the son of a Methodist missionary, came to see that much of German critical thought was established upon a philosophical base that could not be sustained in the light of archaeological discoveries.... Nelson Glueck was Albright’s student. In his own explorations in Trans-Jordan and the Negev and in his excavations, Glueck worked with the Bible in hand. He trusted what he called "the remarkable phenomenon of historical memory in the Bible." He was the president of the prestigious Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion and an ordained Rabbi. Wright went from the faculty of the McCormick Theological Seminary in Chicago to a position in the Harvard Divinity School which he retained until his death. He, too, was a student of Albright.2
By Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon
Significantly, even liberal theologians, secular academics, and critics generally cannot deny that archaeology has confirmed the biblical record at many points. Rationalistic detractors of the Bible can attack it all day long, but they cannot dispute archaeological facts. Consider the weekly PBS series "Mysteries of the Bible." Despite some shortcomings, such as the theologically liberal experts and non-Christian commentators, this program has offered example after example, week after week, of the archaeological reliability of the Bible.
To further illustrate, probably the three greatest American archaeologists of the twentieth century each had their liberal training modified by their archaeological work. W. F. Albright, Nelson Glueck, and George Ernest Wright all "received training in the liberal scholarship of the day, which had resulted from the earlier and continuing critical study of the Bible, predominantly by German scholars."1 Despite their liberal training, it was archaeological research that bolstered their confidence in the biblical text:
Albright said of himself, "I must admit that I tried to be rational and empirical in my approach we all have presuppositions of a philosophical order." The same statement could be applied as easily to Gleuck and Wright, for all three were deeply imbued with the theological perceptions which infused their work. Albright, the son of a Methodist missionary, came to see that much of German critical thought was established upon a philosophical base that could not be sustained in the light of archaeological discoveries.... Nelson Glueck was Albright’s student. In his own explorations in Trans-Jordan and the Negev and in his excavations, Glueck worked with the Bible in hand. He trusted what he called "the remarkable phenomenon of historical memory in the Bible." He was the president of the prestigious Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion and an ordained Rabbi. Wright went from the faculty of the McCormick Theological Seminary in Chicago to a position in the Harvard Divinity School which he retained until his death. He, too, was a student of Albright.2
------ This thread is Archived ------
Glueck forthrightly declared, "As a matter of fact, however, it may be clearly stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact details historical statements in the Bible."3
In fact, "Much of the credit for this relatively new assessment of the patriarchal tradition must go to the ‘Albright school.’ Albright himself pointed out years ago that apart from ‘a few diehards among older scholars’ there is hardly a single biblical historian who is not at least impressed with the rapid accumulation of data supporting the ‘substantial historicity’ of patriarchal tradition."4
And, in fact, this is true not just for the patriarchal tradition but the Bible generally. The earlier statement by assyriologist A. H. Sayce continues to hold true today: "Time after time the most positive assertions of a skeptical criticism have been disproved by archaeological discovery, events and personages that were confidently pronounced to be mythical have been shown to be historical, and the older [i.e., biblical] writers have turned out to have been better acquainted with what they were describing than the modern critics who has flouted them."5
Millar Burrows of Yale points out that, "Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. It has been shown in a number of instances that these views rest on false assumptions and unreal, artificial schemes of historical development...." And, "The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural."6
Many other examples could be given of how firsthand archaeological work changed the view of a critic. One of the most prominent is that of Sir William Ramsay. Ramsey’s own archaeological findings convinced him of the reliability of the Bible and the truth of what it taught. In his The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament and other books, he shows why he came to conclude that "Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness" and that "Luke is a historian of the first rank ... In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."7
In fact, "Much of the credit for this relatively new assessment of the patriarchal tradition must go to the ‘Albright school.’ Albright himself pointed out years ago that apart from ‘a few diehards among older scholars’ there is hardly a single biblical historian who is not at least impressed with the rapid accumulation of data supporting the ‘substantial historicity’ of patriarchal tradition."4
And, in fact, this is true not just for the patriarchal tradition but the Bible generally. The earlier statement by assyriologist A. H. Sayce continues to hold true today: "Time after time the most positive assertions of a skeptical criticism have been disproved by archaeological discovery, events and personages that were confidently pronounced to be mythical have been shown to be historical, and the older [i.e., biblical] writers have turned out to have been better acquainted with what they were describing than the modern critics who has flouted them."5
Millar Burrows of Yale points out that, "Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. It has been shown in a number of instances that these views rest on false assumptions and unreal, artificial schemes of historical development...." And, "The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural."6
Many other examples could be given of how firsthand archaeological work changed the view of a critic. One of the most prominent is that of Sir William Ramsay. Ramsey’s own archaeological findings convinced him of the reliability of the Bible and the truth of what it taught. In his The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament and other books, he shows why he came to conclude that "Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness" and that "Luke is a historian of the first rank ... In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."7
------ This thread is Archived ------
As part of his secular academic duties, Dr. Clifford Wilson was for some years required to research and teach higher critical approaches to the Bible. This gave him a great deal of firsthand exposure and insight to the assumptions and methodologies that go into these approaches. Yet his own archaeological research was found to continually refute such skeptical theories, so much so that he finally concluded, "It is the steady conviction of this writer that the Bible is ... the ancient world’s most reliable history textbook...."8
In a personal communication he added the following,
I was not always the "literalist" I am today. I’ve always had a profound respect for the Bible, but accepted that the use of poetic forms meant that the record could often be interpreted symbolically where now I take it literally—though of course there are times when symbolism is clearly utilized. Thus in later Scriptures "Egypt" can be a geographic country or a symbolic term.
That liberalism is especially true in relation to Genesis chapters 1 through 11, often considered allegorical or mythical, where my researches have led me to the conclusion that this is profound writing, meant to be taken literally. There was a real Adam, creation that was contemporaneous for the various life forms as shown in Genesis chapter 1, and a consistent style of history writing—such as the outlines given in Genesis one, then zeroing in on the specifics relating to mankind in Genesis chapter 2; the history of all the early peoples in Genesis chapter 10, then the concentration on Abraham and his descendants from Genesis chapter 11 onwards. Early man, "the birth of the lady of the rib," long-living man, giants in the earth (animals, birds, and men), the flood, the Tower of Babel—and much more—point to factual, accurate recording of history in these early chapters of Genesis.
Over 40 years have passed since I first became professionally involved in biblical archaeology and my commitment to the Bible as the world’s greatest history book is firmly settled. As Psalm 119:89 states, "Forever O Lord, your word is established in heaven."
In a personal communication he added the following,
I was not always the "literalist" I am today. I’ve always had a profound respect for the Bible, but accepted that the use of poetic forms meant that the record could often be interpreted symbolically where now I take it literally—though of course there are times when symbolism is clearly utilized. Thus in later Scriptures "Egypt" can be a geographic country or a symbolic term.
That liberalism is especially true in relation to Genesis chapters 1 through 11, often considered allegorical or mythical, where my researches have led me to the conclusion that this is profound writing, meant to be taken literally. There was a real Adam, creation that was contemporaneous for the various life forms as shown in Genesis chapter 1, and a consistent style of history writing—such as the outlines given in Genesis one, then zeroing in on the specifics relating to mankind in Genesis chapter 2; the history of all the early peoples in Genesis chapter 10, then the concentration on Abraham and his descendants from Genesis chapter 11 onwards. Early man, "the birth of the lady of the rib," long-living man, giants in the earth (animals, birds, and men), the flood, the Tower of Babel—and much more—point to factual, accurate recording of history in these early chapters of Genesis.
Over 40 years have passed since I first became professionally involved in biblical archaeology and my commitment to the Bible as the world’s greatest history book is firmly settled. As Psalm 119:89 states, "Forever O Lord, your word is established in heaven."
------ This thread is Archived ------
Indeed one of the most valuable contributions of modern archaeology has been its reputation of higher critical views toward scripture. Consider for example the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls.
J. Randall Price (Ph.D., Middle Eastern Studies) currently working on a forthcoming apologetic text on biblical archaeology writes, "Those who expect the [Dead Sea] scrolls to produce a radical revision of the Bible have been disappointed, for these texts have only verified the reliability and stability of the Old Testament as it appears in our modern translations."9
He further points out how the Daniel fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls should require scholars to abandon a Maccabean date. The same kind of evidence forced scholars to abandon Maccabean dates for Chronicles, Ecclesiastes, and many of the Psalms. But so far, most scholars refuse to do this for Daniel: "Unfortunately, critical scholars have not arrived at a similar conclusion for the Book of Daniel, even though the evidence is identical."10 In fact, according to Old Testament scholar Gerhard Hasel, a date for Daniel in the sixth or fifth century BC "has more in its favor today from the point of view of language alone than ever before."11 The Dead Sea Scrolls also provide significant evidence for the unity and single authorship of the Book of Isaiah. Dr. Price concludes, "The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, then, has made a contribution toward confirming the integrity of the biblical text and its own claim to predictive prophecy. Rather than support the recent theories of documentary disunity, the Scrolls have returned scholars to a time when the Bible’s internal witness to its own consistency and veracity was fully accepted by its adherents."12
(to be continued)
J. Randall Price (Ph.D., Middle Eastern Studies) currently working on a forthcoming apologetic text on biblical archaeology writes, "Those who expect the [Dead Sea] scrolls to produce a radical revision of the Bible have been disappointed, for these texts have only verified the reliability and stability of the Old Testament as it appears in our modern translations."9
He further points out how the Daniel fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls should require scholars to abandon a Maccabean date. The same kind of evidence forced scholars to abandon Maccabean dates for Chronicles, Ecclesiastes, and many of the Psalms. But so far, most scholars refuse to do this for Daniel: "Unfortunately, critical scholars have not arrived at a similar conclusion for the Book of Daniel, even though the evidence is identical."10 In fact, according to Old Testament scholar Gerhard Hasel, a date for Daniel in the sixth or fifth century BC "has more in its favor today from the point of view of language alone than ever before."11 The Dead Sea Scrolls also provide significant evidence for the unity and single authorship of the Book of Isaiah. Dr. Price concludes, "The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, then, has made a contribution toward confirming the integrity of the biblical text and its own claim to predictive prophecy. Rather than support the recent theories of documentary disunity, the Scrolls have returned scholars to a time when the Bible’s internal witness to its own consistency and veracity was fully accepted by its adherents."12
(to be continued)
------ This thread is Archived ------
Biblical Archaeology - Silencing the Critics - Part 2
By Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon
The noted classical scholar Professor E. N. Blaiklock once wrote, quite correctly, "Recent archaeology has destroyed much nonsense and will destroy more. And I use the word nonsense deliberately, for theories and speculations find currency in biblical scholarship that would not be tolerated for a moment in any other branch of literary or historical criticism."1 Geisler and Brooks remark, "As for the critical theories which were spawned in the early 1800’s but still persist today, they are left without substantiation. The great archaeologist William F. Albright says, ‘All radical schools in New Testament criticism which have existed in the past or which exist today are pre-archaeological, and are therefore, since they were built in Der Luft [in the air], quite antiquated today.’"2
Indeed, the biases of modern critical biblical scholarship seems evident to everyone except those doing it. And those with biases to uphold usually don’t want to be bothered with troubling little facts. As Kitchen points out:
Nowhere else in the whole of Ancient Near Eastern history has the literary, religious and historical development of a nation been subjected to such drastic and wholesale reconstructions at such variance with the existing documentary evidence. The fact that Old Testament scholars are habituated to these widely known reconstructions, even mentally conditioned by them, does not alter the basic gravity of the situation which should not be taken for granted.... [citing Bright] "The new evidence [i.e., objective Near Eastern data], far from furnishing a corrective to inherited notions of the religions of earliest Israel tends to be subsumed under the familiar developmental pattern’.... And the same applies to other aspects besides history...."3
By Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon
The noted classical scholar Professor E. N. Blaiklock once wrote, quite correctly, "Recent archaeology has destroyed much nonsense and will destroy more. And I use the word nonsense deliberately, for theories and speculations find currency in biblical scholarship that would not be tolerated for a moment in any other branch of literary or historical criticism."1 Geisler and Brooks remark, "As for the critical theories which were spawned in the early 1800’s but still persist today, they are left without substantiation. The great archaeologist William F. Albright says, ‘All radical schools in New Testament criticism which have existed in the past or which exist today are pre-archaeological, and are therefore, since they were built in Der Luft [in the air], quite antiquated today.’"2
Indeed, the biases of modern critical biblical scholarship seems evident to everyone except those doing it. And those with biases to uphold usually don’t want to be bothered with troubling little facts. As Kitchen points out:
Nowhere else in the whole of Ancient Near Eastern history has the literary, religious and historical development of a nation been subjected to such drastic and wholesale reconstructions at such variance with the existing documentary evidence. The fact that Old Testament scholars are habituated to these widely known reconstructions, even mentally conditioned by them, does not alter the basic gravity of the situation which should not be taken for granted.... [citing Bright] "The new evidence [i.e., objective Near Eastern data], far from furnishing a corrective to inherited notions of the religions of earliest Israel tends to be subsumed under the familiar developmental pattern’.... And the same applies to other aspects besides history...."3
------ This thread is Archived ------
MikeHD: Indeed one of the most valuable contributions of modern archaeology has been its reputation of higher critical views toward scripture. Consider for example the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls.
J. Randall Price (Ph.D., Middle Eastern Studies) currently working on a forthcoming apologetic text on biblical archaeology writes, "Those who expect the [Dead Sea] scrolls to produce a radical revision of the Bible have been disappointed, for these texts have only verified the reliability and stability of the Old Testament as it appears in our modern translations."9
He further points out how the Daniel fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls should require scholars to abandon a Maccabean date. The same kind of evidence forced scholars to abandon Maccabean dates for Chronicles, Ecclesiastes, and many of the Psalms. But so far, most scholars refuse to do this for Daniel: "Unfortunately, critical scholars have not arrived at a similar conclusion for the Book of Daniel, even though the evidence is identical."10 In fact, according to Old Testament scholar Gerhard Hasel, a date for Daniel in the sixth or fifth century BC "has more in its favor today from the point of view of language alone than ever before."11 The Dead Sea Scrolls also provide significant evidence for the unity and single authorship of the Book of Isaiah. Dr. Price concludes, "The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, then, has made a contribution toward confirming the integrity of the biblical text and its own claim to predictive prophecy. Rather than support the recent theories of documentary disunity, the Scrolls have returned scholars to a time when the Bible’s internal witness to its own consistency and veracity was fully accepted by its adherents."12
(to be continued)
Yep,you're just another Automaton.J. Randall Price (Ph.D., Middle Eastern Studies) currently working on a forthcoming apologetic text on biblical archaeology writes, "Those who expect the [Dead Sea] scrolls to produce a radical revision of the Bible have been disappointed, for these texts have only verified the reliability and stability of the Old Testament as it appears in our modern translations."9
He further points out how the Daniel fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls should require scholars to abandon a Maccabean date. The same kind of evidence forced scholars to abandon Maccabean dates for Chronicles, Ecclesiastes, and many of the Psalms. But so far, most scholars refuse to do this for Daniel: "Unfortunately, critical scholars have not arrived at a similar conclusion for the Book of Daniel, even though the evidence is identical."10 In fact, according to Old Testament scholar Gerhard Hasel, a date for Daniel in the sixth or fifth century BC "has more in its favor today from the point of view of language alone than ever before."11 The Dead Sea Scrolls also provide significant evidence for the unity and single authorship of the Book of Isaiah. Dr. Price concludes, "The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, then, has made a contribution toward confirming the integrity of the biblical text and its own claim to predictive prophecy. Rather than support the recent theories of documentary disunity, the Scrolls have returned scholars to a time when the Bible’s internal witness to its own consistency and veracity was fully accepted by its adherents."12
(to be continued)
Not one Thought of your own.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Thus, "Biblical studies have long been hindered by the persistence of long-outdated philosophical and literary theories (especially of nineteenth-century stamp), and by wholly inadequate use of first-hand sources in appreciating the earlier periods of the Old Testament story in particular."4 One predominant example is the documentary hypothesis or the "JEDP" theory of the first five books of the Bible, which we will discuss in a moment.
The irony, or perhaps hypocrisy, of liberal critical scholarship at this point is illustrated in its two-minded approach to biblical archaeology. On the one hand, any time archaeology does not directly confirm something the Bible teaches, the tendency is to allege an error in the text. Thus, "any element in the traditions which was not corroborated by archaeological evidence has been considered suspect or anachronistic."5 On the other hand, liberal critics frequently tend to avoid the use of archaeology where it confirms the Bible:
One of the striking characteristics of the scholars who have approached the Bible primarily through literary analysis [e.g., the documentary hypothesis] is the non-use or at best the grudging use they have made of archaeological evidence.6
For example,
A few scholars who had accepted the views of higher criticism, such as A. H. Sayce, revised their positions because of the impact of the early archaeological discoveries, but most higher critics chose not to make use of the new data."7
To cite another example, archaeology has discredited the theories of form criticism, which holds that the content of the gospels was largely invented and only written down 100-150 years after the apostles lived, in the second century a.d.8 It may surprise no one that form critics have ignored archaeology when it discredits personal theories that they have held to for emotional as well as academic reasons. But how scholarly are they being? Scholars, presumably, are interested in the truth and will allow the evidence to take them where it will. Yet when it comes to the Bible, it seems there aren’t very many real scholars in modern academia.
The irony, or perhaps hypocrisy, of liberal critical scholarship at this point is illustrated in its two-minded approach to biblical archaeology. On the one hand, any time archaeology does not directly confirm something the Bible teaches, the tendency is to allege an error in the text. Thus, "any element in the traditions which was not corroborated by archaeological evidence has been considered suspect or anachronistic."5 On the other hand, liberal critics frequently tend to avoid the use of archaeology where it confirms the Bible:
One of the striking characteristics of the scholars who have approached the Bible primarily through literary analysis [e.g., the documentary hypothesis] is the non-use or at best the grudging use they have made of archaeological evidence.6
For example,
A few scholars who had accepted the views of higher criticism, such as A. H. Sayce, revised their positions because of the impact of the early archaeological discoveries, but most higher critics chose not to make use of the new data."7
To cite another example, archaeology has discredited the theories of form criticism, which holds that the content of the gospels was largely invented and only written down 100-150 years after the apostles lived, in the second century a.d.8 It may surprise no one that form critics have ignored archaeology when it discredits personal theories that they have held to for emotional as well as academic reasons. But how scholarly are they being? Scholars, presumably, are interested in the truth and will allow the evidence to take them where it will. Yet when it comes to the Bible, it seems there aren’t very many real scholars in modern academia.
------ This thread is Archived ------
An illustration involves the documentary hypothesis. This theory rejects Mosaic authorship in the fifteenth century B.C., and supposes a much later compilation by a variety of authors who wrote documents termed "J," "E," "D," and "P." This material was later shuffled and reassembled by editors to form the Pentateuch and, allegedly, later writings of the Old Testament also. Yet "even the most ardent advocate of the documentary theory must admit that we have as yet no single scrap of external, objective material (i.e., tangible) evidence for either the existence or the history of ‘J,’ ‘E,’ or any other alleged source-document."9
For more than 100 years the Graf-Wellhausen or "documentary" theory has been taught in most seminaries and universities as the "absolute truth" concerning the literary evolution and development of the Old Testament—and yet not a shred of evidence exists to support it! Instead, this theory has been thoroughly disproven for decades, even by non-evangelical scholarship, yet it continues to be taught as truth. How’s that for illustrating the objectivity of those in the scholarly community supporting this theory? Essentially, liberal biblical scholars are promoting elaborately devised myths in order to reject Mosaic authorship and the divine inspiration of the Old Testament so that they can "uphold" their own personal views of the Bible as a humanly devised document. What could be fairer?
The theories current in Old Testament studies, however brilliantly conceived and elaborated, were mainly established in a vacuum with little or no reference to the Ancient Near East and initially too often in accordance with a priori philosophical and literary principles. It is solely because the data from the Ancient Near East coincide so much better with the existing observable structure of Old Testament history, literature and religion than with the theoretical reconstructions, that we are compelled—as happens in Ancient Oriental studies—to question or even to abandon such theories regardless of their popularity. Facts not votes determine the truth.10
For more than 100 years the Graf-Wellhausen or "documentary" theory has been taught in most seminaries and universities as the "absolute truth" concerning the literary evolution and development of the Old Testament—and yet not a shred of evidence exists to support it! Instead, this theory has been thoroughly disproven for decades, even by non-evangelical scholarship, yet it continues to be taught as truth. How’s that for illustrating the objectivity of those in the scholarly community supporting this theory? Essentially, liberal biblical scholars are promoting elaborately devised myths in order to reject Mosaic authorship and the divine inspiration of the Old Testament so that they can "uphold" their own personal views of the Bible as a humanly devised document. What could be fairer?
The theories current in Old Testament studies, however brilliantly conceived and elaborated, were mainly established in a vacuum with little or no reference to the Ancient Near East and initially too often in accordance with a priori philosophical and literary principles. It is solely because the data from the Ancient Near East coincide so much better with the existing observable structure of Old Testament history, literature and religion than with the theoretical reconstructions, that we are compelled—as happens in Ancient Oriental studies—to question or even to abandon such theories regardless of their popularity. Facts not votes determine the truth.10
------ This thread is Archived ------
As Dr. Kitchen infers, the documentary hypothesis, since it is disproved, should be abandoned, but perhaps one should not hold one’s breath. Anyone who reads even a relatively brief survey of the evidence against the documentary hypothesis, as that given by the noted biblical and linguistic scholar, Gleason L. Archer in his A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, will realize how thoroughly liberal Old Testament scholarship has been based in fantasy. For example:
[Even in the nineteenth century] in America the Princeton Seminary scholars Joseph Addison Alexander and William Henry Green... subjected the documentarian school to devastating criticism which has never been successfully rebutted by those of liberal persuasion.... How shall we characterize the trend of twentieth-century scholarship and its treatment of Pentateuchal criticism and of the Wellhausen hypothesis?... Almost every supporting pillar has been shaken and shattered by a generation of scholars who were brought up on the Graf-Wellhausen system and yet have found it inadequate to explain the data of the Pentateuch.... We close with an apt quotation from H. F. Hahn, "This review of activity in the field of Old Testament criticism during the last quarter-century has revealed a chaos of conflicting trends, ending in contradictory results, which create an impression of ineffectiveness in this type of research. The conclusion seems unavoidable that the higher criticism has long since past the age of constructive achievement."11
Incidentally, Archer’s text, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction has many examples of archaeological confirmation of Old Testament books; and yet he also points out that an attitude of skeptical prejudice toward the Bible "has persisted, without any logical justification."12 That the majority of liberal Old Testament scholars allow their personal biases to dictate their research methods and conclusions—merely to support personal views—is no small indictment given the fact that such theories have been discredited for decades.
What one finds through archaeological research is that alleged biblical errors have later been shown to be factual truths. What else, then, can one conclude about higher critical scholarship—other than the fact that it is the problem, not the Bible? "In the light of past discoveries one may expect that future archaeological finds will continue to support the biblical traditions against radical reconstructions."13
[Even in the nineteenth century] in America the Princeton Seminary scholars Joseph Addison Alexander and William Henry Green... subjected the documentarian school to devastating criticism which has never been successfully rebutted by those of liberal persuasion.... How shall we characterize the trend of twentieth-century scholarship and its treatment of Pentateuchal criticism and of the Wellhausen hypothesis?... Almost every supporting pillar has been shaken and shattered by a generation of scholars who were brought up on the Graf-Wellhausen system and yet have found it inadequate to explain the data of the Pentateuch.... We close with an apt quotation from H. F. Hahn, "This review of activity in the field of Old Testament criticism during the last quarter-century has revealed a chaos of conflicting trends, ending in contradictory results, which create an impression of ineffectiveness in this type of research. The conclusion seems unavoidable that the higher criticism has long since past the age of constructive achievement."11
Incidentally, Archer’s text, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction has many examples of archaeological confirmation of Old Testament books; and yet he also points out that an attitude of skeptical prejudice toward the Bible "has persisted, without any logical justification."12 That the majority of liberal Old Testament scholars allow their personal biases to dictate their research methods and conclusions—merely to support personal views—is no small indictment given the fact that such theories have been discredited for decades.
What one finds through archaeological research is that alleged biblical errors have later been shown to be factual truths. What else, then, can one conclude about higher critical scholarship—other than the fact that it is the problem, not the Bible? "In the light of past discoveries one may expect that future archaeological finds will continue to support the biblical traditions against radical reconstructions."13
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
1830's Music
everything is changing
rarotonga
What I Lack In Vocabulary
Heavy Bass In The PM
Reality Check
Nature
The world is as you see
Don Shits-In-Pants!!!
What's going on
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).