OK, there has been much debate on the Bible since the very early centuries when it was written. There are people who base their whole lives and decisions around this book, and those who burn it. Who is right? Is the Bible a reliable book, or just a harmless fairytale about things that didn't ever really happen.
The very first thing we have to do is analyze the Bible. Instead of getting all worked up and arguing in a excited manner, lets take a long calm look at the Bible.
The first thing we have to do is look at the facts. Scientific facts and historical facts are the two different kinds of facts to look at here.
Scientific facts are observable and repeatable. We cannot observe the events that are recorded in the Bible, neither can we repeat them. So do we throw out the Bible as an unreliable book based on these two observsations? I think not. We do not throw out a biographical book just because we can't observe or repeat the events of someone's live. These writtings are generally excepted as true although we cannot observe or repeat the things recorded in them.
This brings me to the second kind of facts: historical facts. Historical facts that are accepted have eye-witness testimonies and multiple corroborating witnesses. Historical documents are assumed reliable until proven errant, so lets assume the Bible is true for now. What does the Bible claim? Well, Jesus claimed to be the truth in John 14:6, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God in Luke 22:70-71, Jesus claimed that knowing his teaching is knowing the truth in John 8: 31-32, and Jesus claimed that he would raise from the dead three days after he died in John 2: 19-21.
So do we have eye-witness testimonies? Paul testifies that he saw Jesus after his resurrection in 1 Cor 15:8, and 1 Cor 15:5-8 names the eye-witnesses, including 500 unnamed witnesses who were alive around A.D. 55 at the time Paul wrote the first Corinthian epistle. Also the gospel writers all provide testimony of eye-witnesses of his resurrection in Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20, and Acts 1.
Now we have eye-witness testimonies and multiple corroborating witnesses. So what conclusions can we come to? Since Jesus claimed he would be raise from the dead, and we have evidence he did, we can also believe his claims to be the truth and the Son of God. Therefore, what Jesus says is true, because he is God. So since the Bible is the teaching of Jesus, we can conclude that the Bible is true.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think that the Bible is real don't you. I agree about people to day they don't believe the Bible and it makes me so upset that they believe the way that they do. Like today when one of my friends and I went out to eat a lady asked our opinion of we thaught of the Bible and after we talked to her she finally began to agree with us on the subject and she said that she didn't consider all of the possiblities out there. She also talked to us and told us her opinion and then we began to pray with her and right then and there at Burger King she gave her heart to the Lord.
I believe the Bible is true, not just because of all the facts, but because of what I know Christ has done for me! It is pretty awesome to see some really great evidence out there for the Bible's authority. I didn't know what kind of evidence and how much evidence was really out there for the Bible's veracity until last year. Isn't God great? I love your comment, too, Janeane. It's so encouraging to hear a story about someone getting saved by talking to Christian teens.
Just in case anybody is confused, I do believe the Bible is true. Thats what I was trying to prove. I hope nobody thought I am unsure about its authority. I was just looking at it in an analytical manner, instead of in a prejudging manner.
According to this argument, the Bible is still not proven to be true. You used the bible to prove itself. Read anything you want from the book, and it is not true until the book you are reading from is proven to be true. You gracefully skipped over this point by saying, "lets assume the Bible is true for now." Also, you said that "the first thing we have to do is analyze the Bible." You also said that "the first thing we have to do is analyze the facts." Now, which is it? I hope you were wanting to convey to me, the humble reader, that we need to prove the bible to be authentic by the use of non-biblical sources--thus your mentioning of facts. If you do not prove that the document is real, whatever the document says is merely opinions and good stories.
Post a Comment