Why can you believe in the Bible?
The history of the Bible is characterized by its reporting style of any other religious text.
The Bible was written over a period of 1500 years by forty authors. The Bible is read as a true story of real events, places, people and dialogues, in contrast to the writings of other religions. Historians and archaeologists have repeatedly emphasized the validity of the Bible.
God showed us what we needed to know real knowledge, using the distinctive writing styles of authors and their personalities.
More than forty authors, who wrote the Bible, carried one fundamental message that God is our Creator, and wants us to be in relationship with him, as well as to know and trust him.
Not only does the Bible encourage us, it also explains life and God. He may not answer all the questions in our minds, but he answers enough of them. He explains to us how to live a goal in life, act with compassion, how we relate to others and be in relationship with God. We are also encouraged to rely on God as the source of strength and direction, and to enjoy the true love for us as well. The Bible also tells us how to have eternal life.
It supports many of the evidence, historical accuracy of the Bible as well as divine authorship (the sub-sections of this article are if you want to read any particular section).
1. How does archeology support the Bible?
Archeology can not prove to us that the Bible is the Word of God. However, archeology can prove the accuracy of the historical Bible and it does. Archaeologists have discovered the names of official government officials, kings, cities and ceremonies in keeping with the names mentioned in the Bible, although historians sometimes did not believe that these people or places existed. For example, the Gospel of John tells us about the healing of Jesus to the seat at the pool of the House of Envy. The text describes five corridors leading to the pool. The teachers did not believe that the pond actually existed until archaeologists found this pond full of the five arcades forty feet below.
The Bible tells a great deal of historical detail, and archeology is not yet discovered in the Bible. However, one archaeological discovery did not contradict what the Bible recorded. In contrast, Lee Strobel, a news reporter for the book of Mormon, commented: "Archeology has repeatedly failed to prove the allegation of events that were supposed to have occurred long ago in the Americas. I have written to the Smithsonian Institute to inquire about any evidence supporting Mormonism claims, and I have heard only incongruous words that archaeologists have seen "no direct link between archeology in the New World and the subject of this book." Archeology The location of cities, persons or names mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
While archeology identified many of the old places mentioned by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament. "The total number of names mentioned by Luke is thirty-two countries and fifty-four cities and nine islands without error."
Archeology has also refuted many of the baseless theories of the Bible. For example, one theory that is still taught in some colleges to this day confirms that Moses did not write the Torah (the five books in the Bible), because writing was not invented in his time. The archaeologists then discovered the black stone "written on it in letters in the form of a wedge, which contained the detailed laws written by Hammurabi." Were these writings after Moses? They were not only prior to the time of Moses, but also before Abraham ), That is to say, preceded the writings of Moses for at least three centuries. " (5) Archeology has consistently emphasized the accuracy of the historical Bible.
For further study, click here until you see a table listing some of the most important archaeological discoveries.
2. Has the Bible changed over time, or has it been written in the original language?
Some have an idea that the Bible has been translated "many times" and that it has been distorted during the translation stages. If the translation had been from other translations, it would have actually happened, but in fact the translation was directly from the original texts in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic based on thousands of ancient manuscripts.
The archeological discovery of 1947, in the area now known as the West Bank in Israel, confirmed the accuracy of the Old Testament; the 1,000-year-old Black Sea Scrolls included the Old Testament books, older than any manuscripts in our possession. When we compare the manuscripts in our hands with these manuscripts dating from 1000 years, we find that they agree with them 99.5%. The ratio of 5% is a slight differences in spelling, writing and sentence composition did not change the meaning of sentences.
With regard to the New Testament, it is the most ancient document in human credibility; we have thousands of copies of the New Testament, all of which are dates written close to the dates of the original writing. In fact, we are sure that the New Testament remained as originally written by its authors rather than from writings attributed to Plato, Aristotle or the Iliad attributed to Homer.
3. Are the Bible stories about Jesus credible?
When historians try to determine whetherSomeone's life was credible, they ask, "How many other sources have the same details about that person?" Here is an explanation of how this method works. Imagine you are collecting John's resume. F. Kennedy, and found many describe his family and his presidency, the way he handled the Cuban missile crisis, and almost all biographies submitted a report with the same facts. But what if one of these biographies mentions that the president lived for 10 years as president in South Africa? While other biographies show that he lived in the United States throughout his life. The conscious historian will be convinced of the stories that agree with each other, and exclude the various biographies.
The apostles Matthew and John, who knew Jesus personally and traveled with him over the course of three years, wrote two passages about the life of Jesus, while Mark and Luke, two close companions of the apostles, wrote the other two. These writers had direct access to the facts they recorded. The first Church accepted the four Gospels because it came in accordance with the common knowledge of Jesus' life.
Once again, the Gospels are read like news reports, with real stories about the events of those days, where every writer wrote about the life of Jesus from his own perspective. Each author is characterized in a special way to describe events, but the facts remain compatible with each other. The Gospels provide specific geographical names and cultural details confirmed by historians and archaeologists.
4. Do historians confirm what the Bible says about Jesus?
The Bible says that Jesus of Nazareth performed many miracles, was crucified by the Romans, and rose from the dead. Many historians have supported the Bible's account of Jesus' life and the lives of his disciples, for example:
Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 BC), a Roman historian of the first century, is considered the most accurate historian in the ancient world. One quote tells us that Nero, the Roman emperor, "brought down the most torment of a class known as the Christians, and Christ, whose Christians derived their name, was subjected to the greatest punishment in the reign of Tiberius by one of our states called Pontius Pilate."
Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (38-100 BC), wrote about Jesus in his book "Jewish antiquities." Josephus said: "Jesus was a wise man who performed amazing heroic deeds. He knew many, and he won the followers of the Jews and the Greeks. He was believed by many as the Messiah, but he was accused by the Jewish leaders of crucified by Pilate and raised from the dead."
Seutonius Pliny, "Suetonius, Pliny" and Thallus, also wrote about the worship of Christians and the persecution they suffered, which is consistent with New Testament novels.
Even the Jewish "Talmud", which was certainly impartial to Jesus, agreed with the most important events of his life. The Talmud states: "Jesus was born illegitimate, gathered disciples, claimed many revelations about himself, and performed miracles, but attributed these miracles to magic and sorcery, not to God."
This remarkable information is that most ancient historians focused on political and military leaders, not on the submerged rabbis of the remote provinces of the Roman Empire. Ancient historians (Jews, Greeks and Romans), however, emphasized the most important events of the New Testament even if they themselves were not believers.
5. Are there contradictions in the Bible?
There are some claims that the Bible is full of contradictions, and this is simply not true; the number of apparent contradictions in reality is small and unnoticeable, especially in a book the size and scope of the Bible. The existing apparent differences are differences of curiosity, not tragedy, and do not touch any important event or faith.
The following is an example of one of the alleged contradictions. Pilate ordered that an inscription be placed on the cross; Jesus was suspended. Three Bibles recorded what was written at this address:
In Matthew: «This is Jesus the King of the Jews».
In Mark, King of the Jews.
In John: Jesus of Nazareth is the King of the Jews.
However, the most prominent thing is that the three writers described the event itself in detail, that Jesus was crucified, and they all agreed on it, so they recorded that he put the title of Jesus' illness on the cross, and the meaning of the title is one in Three novels.
What is the exact wording?
It supports many of the evidence, historical accuracy of the Bible as well as divine authorship (the sub-sections of this article are if you want to read any particular section).
1. How does archeology support the Bible?
The Bible tells a great deal of historical detail, and archeology is not yet discovered in the Bible. However, one archaeological discovery did not contradict what the Bible recorded. In contrast, Lee Strobel, a news reporter for the book of Mormon, commented: "Archeology has repeatedly failed to prove the allegation of events that were supposed to have occurred long ago in the Americas. I have written to the Smithsonian Institute to inquire about any evidence supporting Mormonism claims, and I have heard only incongruous words that archaeologists have seen "no direct link between archeology in the New World and the subject of this book." Archeology The location of cities, persons or names mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
While archeology identified many of the old places mentioned by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament. "The total number of names mentioned by Luke is thirty-two countries and fifty-four cities and nine islands without error."
Archeology has also refuted many of the baseless theories of the Bible. For example, one theory that is still taught in some colleges to this day confirms that Moses did not write the Torah (the five books in the Bible), because writing was not invented in his time. The archaeologists then discovered the black stone "written on it in letters in the form of a wedge, which contained the detailed laws written by Hammurabi." Were these writings after Moses? They were not only prior to the time of Moses, but also before Abraham ), That is to say, preceded the writings of Moses for at least three centuries. " (5) Archeology has consistently emphasized the accuracy of the historical Bible.
For further study, click here until you see a table listing some of the most important archaeological discoveries.
2. Has the Bible changed over time, or has it been written in the original language?
Some have an idea that the Bible has been translated "many times" and that it has been distorted during the translation stages. If the translation had been from other translations, it would have actually happened, but in fact the translation was directly from the original texts in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic based on thousands of ancient manuscripts.
The archeological discovery of 1947, in the area now known as the West Bank in Israel, confirmed the accuracy of the Old Testament; the 1,000-year-old Black Sea Scrolls included the Old Testament books, older than any manuscripts in our possession. When we compare the manuscripts in our hands with these manuscripts dating from 1000 years, we find that they agree with them 99.5%. The ratio of 5% is a slight differences in spelling, writing and sentence composition did not change the meaning of sentences.
With regard to the New Testament, it is the most ancient document in human credibility; we have thousands of copies of the New Testament, all of which are dates written close to the dates of the original writing. In fact, we are sure that the New Testament remained as originally written by its authors rather than from writings attributed to Plato, Aristotle or the Iliad attributed to Homer.
3. Are the Bible stories about Jesus credible?
Four books of the New Testament wrote the biography of Jesus. These writings are called the Four Gospels, the first four books of the New Testament. How can we ascertain the accuracy of these four passages that deal with the life of Jesus?
When historians try to determine whetherSomeone's life was credible, they ask, "How many other sources have the same details about that person?" Here is an explanation of how this method works. Imagine you are collecting John's resume. F. Kennedy, and found many describe his family and his presidency, the way he handled the Cuban missile crisis, and almost all biographies submitted a report with the same facts. But what if one of these biographies mentions that the president lived for 10 years as president in South Africa? While other biographies show that he lived in the United States throughout his life. The conscious historian will be convinced of the stories that agree with each other, and exclude the various biographies.
The apostles Matthew and John, who knew Jesus personally and traveled with him over the course of three years, wrote two passages about the life of Jesus, while Mark and Luke, two close companions of the apostles, wrote the other two. These writers had direct access to the facts they recorded. The first Church accepted the four Gospels because it came in accordance with the common knowledge of Jesus' life.
Once again, the Gospels are read like news reports, with real stories about the events of those days, where every writer wrote about the life of Jesus from his own perspective. Each author is characterized in a special way to describe events, but the facts remain compatible with each other. The Gospels provide specific geographical names and cultural details confirmed by historians and archaeologists.
4. Do historians confirm what the Bible says about Jesus?
Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 BC), a Roman historian of the first century, is considered the most accurate historian in the ancient world. One quote tells us that Nero, the Roman emperor, "brought down the most torment of a class known as the Christians, and Christ, whose Christians derived their name, was subjected to the greatest punishment in the reign of Tiberius by one of our states called Pontius Pilate."
Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (38-100 BC), wrote about Jesus in his book "Jewish antiquities." Josephus said: "Jesus was a wise man who performed amazing heroic deeds. He knew many, and he won the followers of the Jews and the Greeks. He was believed by many as the Messiah, but he was accused by the Jewish leaders of crucified by Pilate and raised from the dead."
Seutonius Pliny, "Suetonius, Pliny" and Thallus, also wrote about the worship of Christians and the persecution they suffered, which is consistent with New Testament novels.
Even the Jewish "Talmud", which was certainly impartial to Jesus, agreed with the most important events of his life. The Talmud states: "Jesus was born illegitimate, gathered disciples, claimed many revelations about himself, and performed miracles, but attributed these miracles to magic and sorcery, not to God."
This remarkable information is that most ancient historians focused on political and military leaders, not on the submerged rabbis of the remote provinces of the Roman Empire. Ancient historians (Jews, Greeks and Romans), however, emphasized the most important events of the New Testament even if they themselves were not believers.
5. Are there contradictions in the Bible?
There are some claims that the Bible is full of contradictions, and this is simply not true; the number of apparent contradictions in reality is small and unnoticeable, especially in a book the size and scope of the Bible. The existing apparent differences are differences of curiosity, not tragedy, and do not touch any important event or faith.
The following is an example of one of the alleged contradictions. Pilate ordered that an inscription be placed on the cross; Jesus was suspended. Three Bibles recorded what was written at this address:
In Matthew: «This is Jesus the King of the Jews».
In Mark, King of the Jews.
In John: Jesus of Nazareth is the King of the Jews.
However, the most prominent thing is that the three writers described the event itself in detail, that Jesus was crucified, and they all agreed on it, so they recorded that he put the title of Jesus' illness on the cross, and the meaning of the title is one in Three novels.
What is the exact wording?
The original Greek language in which the Gospels were written did not use the quotation marks as we use today to indicate that these words are a direct quotation, where the Bible authors used an indirect quote, which explains the nuances in the texts.
Here is another example that illustrates one of the apparent contradictions. Was Jesus in the tomb two or three nights before his resurrection? Jesus said, before his crucifixion: "For as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights" (Matthew 12:40). Mark also records another phrase that Jesus said: "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man is betrayed to the chief priests and scribes, and they shall judge him by death, and deliver him to the Gentiles, and they will mock him, and flog him, and kill him, and kill him." (Mark 10:33, 34) ).
The crucifixion of Jesus died on Friday and the resurrection was on Sunday. How can this period be three days and nights in the grave? It was a Jewish metaphor in Jesus' time to consider any part of the day or night as a whole day, so that the whole, the Sabbath, the Sunday is three days and three nights in the culture in which Jesus lived. We speak in similar ways today. If someone says, "I'll spend the whole day buying," we understand that a person does not intend, of course, to spend 24 hours buying.
These contradictions represent typical contradictions in the New Testament. Most of these contradictions are closely related to the text itself or through the study of the historical background.
6. How were the books of the New Testament determined? Why did not you accept the books of the Apocrypha (the Travels Deleted), the Gospel of Judas or the Gospel of Thomas?
There are several strong reasons for trust in the list of New Testament books we have today;New era as soon as I wrote. The authors were friends or followers of Jesus, men whom Jesus had trusted to lead the first church. Matthew and John wrote two of the Gospels from the earliest disciples to Jesus, as Mark and Luke accompanied the apostles and heard the apostles' narratives of Jesus' life. In addition, the authors of the New Testament had direct access to Jesus' life: for example, Jacob Judah was not a brother to Jesus and did not believe in him at the beginning. Paul initially appeared as a violent enemy of Christianity and a member of the ruling religious class, but he became an enthusiastic and jealous pupil of Jesus convinced that he had risen from the dead. The reports of the New Testament corresponded to what thousands of eyewitnesses saw themselves. When I wrote some books hundreds of years later, it was not difficult for the Church to discover counterfeiting. For example, the Gnostic sect wrote the Gospel of Judas about 130-170 BC after the death of Judah. The Gospel of Thomas, written around 140 BC, is another example of a false writing that falsely bears the name of one of the apostles. These Gospels, in addition to other Gnostic gospels, contradicted Jesus' well-known teachings and also opposed the Old Testament, and contained many historical and geographical errors. (10) In 367 BC, Athanasius placed a list of the twenty-seven New Testament travel books (the same list that we have today). Jerome and Augustine quickly published this same list. However, this list was not necessary for the majority of believers. The whole church has generally recognized the same list of books and used them since the first century AD. When the Church grew and spread beyond the Greek-speaking countries, it needed to translate the Bible, and when the dissident sects suddenly appeared in their holy scriptures, it became more important to have a specific list.
Here is another example that illustrates one of the apparent contradictions. Was Jesus in the tomb two or three nights before his resurrection? Jesus said, before his crucifixion: "For as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights" (Matthew 12:40). Mark also records another phrase that Jesus said: "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man is betrayed to the chief priests and scribes, and they shall judge him by death, and deliver him to the Gentiles, and they will mock him, and flog him, and kill him, and kill him." (Mark 10:33, 34) ).
The crucifixion of Jesus died on Friday and the resurrection was on Sunday. How can this period be three days and nights in the grave? It was a Jewish metaphor in Jesus' time to consider any part of the day or night as a whole day, so that the whole, the Sabbath, the Sunday is three days and three nights in the culture in which Jesus lived. We speak in similar ways today. If someone says, "I'll spend the whole day buying," we understand that a person does not intend, of course, to spend 24 hours buying.
These contradictions represent typical contradictions in the New Testament. Most of these contradictions are closely related to the text itself or through the study of the historical background.
6. How were the books of the New Testament determined? Why did not you accept the books of the Apocrypha (the Travels Deleted), the Gospel of Judas or the Gospel of Thomas?
There are several strong reasons for trust in the list of New Testament books we have today;New era as soon as I wrote. The authors were friends or followers of Jesus, men whom Jesus had trusted to lead the first church. Matthew and John wrote two of the Gospels from the earliest disciples to Jesus, as Mark and Luke accompanied the apostles and heard the apostles' narratives of Jesus' life. In addition, the authors of the New Testament had direct access to Jesus' life: for example, Jacob Judah was not a brother to Jesus and did not believe in him at the beginning. Paul initially appeared as a violent enemy of Christianity and a member of the ruling religious class, but he became an enthusiastic and jealous pupil of Jesus convinced that he had risen from the dead. The reports of the New Testament corresponded to what thousands of eyewitnesses saw themselves. When I wrote some books hundreds of years later, it was not difficult for the Church to discover counterfeiting. For example, the Gnostic sect wrote the Gospel of Judas about 130-170 BC after the death of Judah. The Gospel of Thomas, written around 140 BC, is another example of a false writing that falsely bears the name of one of the apostles. These Gospels, in addition to other Gnostic gospels, contradicted Jesus' well-known teachings and also opposed the Old Testament, and contained many historical and geographical errors. (10) In 367 BC, Athanasius placed a list of the twenty-seven New Testament travel books (the same list that we have today). Jerome and Augustine quickly published this same list. However, this list was not necessary for the majority of believers. The whole church has generally recognized the same list of books and used them since the first century AD. When the Church grew and spread beyond the Greek-speaking countries, it needed to translate the Bible, and when the dissident sects suddenly appeared in their holy scriptures, it became more important to have a specific list.
Why did it take 30 to 60 years to write the New Testament Gospels?
The main reason why the Bible did not write directly after Jesus' death and resurrection was that he did not appear to have a need for such writings; the Bible first appeared orally in Jerusalem. Written about the life of Jesus; for those who lived in the area of Jerusalem were witnesses to Jesus and knew His ministry. (11) However, when the Gospel spread beyond Jerusalem, it was no longer easy to reach and speak with eyewitnesses, so written stories were needed to teach others about Jesus' life and service. Many scholars attributed the date of the writing of the Gospels to the period between 30 and 60 after the death of Jesus. Luke tells us at the beginning of the Gospel that he wrote about the reason for his writing: "Many have written a story about things that are certain to us, As witnesses and servants of the Word, I also saw, having followed every thing from the first with diligence, to write straight to you, dear Theophilus, I learned it. "
Is it really important to know that Jesus said what He said in the Gospels?
Yes, faith must be built on actual realities in order to have value. Here's why: If you fly to London, you'll probably be confident that the aircraft is fuel-efficient and mechanically reliable, that the pilot is trained, and that it does not carry any terrorists aboard. However, your economy will not connect to London. Your confidence is helpful in boarding a plane, but in fact what makes you arrive London is the safety of the plane, the pilot ... etc. You can rely on your positive experience on past flights, but even this positive experience will not be enough to get this plane to London. What matters is your trust; that is, you can trust this aircraft. Does the New Testament offer a precise and reliable account of Jesus' life? Yes, we can trust the New Testament, because many facts support it. This article touches on the following points: the agreement of the historians, the Archeology Agreement, as well as the agreement of the four Gospels with each other, and the preservation of copies of the documents was clear and prominent; All of this provides a firm basis for the belief that what we are reading today is what the original authors wrote and experienced in real life and in real places. John, one of the authors, summed it up well: "And many other miracles Jesus did before his disciples were not written in this book. To believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and to be yours if you believe in life in His name. "