I will go thrue the page and comment by paragraph...\\
Many spiritual seekers wonder why there is not more historical evidence to verify the birth, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. Here is something to consider. There is no need for more evidence because the Holy Bible itself is historical evidence. he Old Testament has over 60 prophecies about Jesus that were fulfilled. The Bible has the Four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) that document Jesus' life. The balance of the New Testament has references to Jesus. There are 66 books of the Bible. Almost every single book of the Bible has either a prophecy about Jesus or verses that point to the Gospel message. There are over 24,600 manuscripts of the New Testament and over 24,000 original manuscripts of portions of the New Testament.
This is horrible in two ways
1. They are using the book they are trying to debunk as evidince. Lets say this was a phisics book that says gravity is controled by elves. To argue it, I whould not use the same thing I am arguing against.
2. Just because it is old and long does not make it true. If this were true then Beowolf, Odysius, Alchellies, ect whould all exist.
Bible Can Be Trusted
Some will argue that you can't trust the Bible because it was written by those who believed in God or Jesus. They will say that the authors were bias, so they did not write accurate information. If you were to use this argument regarding autobiographies, biographies, and history books (this is what the Bible is like), you would like to remove all these books off the library selves.
There is a huge differance. Once again it whould be like using the Odysy as a historical book.
Autobiographies obviously have some bias because they are written by individuals about themselves. They certainly could misinterpret some of their experiences, but how many readers would toss out an autobiography as not a trustworthy book about the author? So, why toss out portions of scripture that are autobiographical?
People do have biece. For example, lets say I am reading Hitlers autobiography. It whould idolize him, ignoring the bad and exentuating the good. Hitler whould also be written about kindly by the Nazis, who whould do the same thing. And somtimes ad things to make them sound even more legandary, as the bible does.
Many biographies are written by people who loved the person they are writing about, but we do not question their validity. Yes, we may see some prejudices or favoritism in a biography, but we can overall trust most biographies, because if they were inaccurate there would be an uproar from others. So, why toss out portions of scripture that are biographical? Unless we have proof they are inaccurate, we need to give them the same trust we would a modern day biography
.
There was uproar from others, the Cristians just killed them.
There are certainly books about history written by those who have had prejudices. We see much more of that in recent years. But again, if someone was to write a very distorted view of something historical, don't we believe others would not be silent? However, regarding the history written in the Bible there was overall silence by those who were alive when the Bible manuscripts first appeared. It has only been in recent years that there has been a challenge to the historical validity of the Bible. What is interesting is that more and more there is archaeological proof to the historical accuracy of the Bible.
It was recently when most pollytiesms relized that there was no super powered humen biengs running around, aka demigods, but before they relized that it was taken as historical proof, so why should your bible be different?
There is something that is unique about the Bible compared to any autobiography, biography, or history book - the Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God. This means it was God breathed. The authors of the Bible wrote what God had them to write. Yes, they wrote with their style of writing, but the accuracy of what they wrote was based upon being inspired by God. We know, as a spiritual seeker you may not believe this. That is ok. We are going to provide more evidence for the Validity of the Bible.
Once again you are using the bible to try and prove the bible. If the bible were true to start with, then this would be true. But if it is false, wich it probably is, then the armument has no value.
Bible Manuscripts
Some would argue that the Bible can't be trusted because we do not know if the copies we have of the Bible are accurate, or if the original manuscripts are accurate.
I have never actualy heard that argument before, but it is correct in saying that.
The chart below lists some documents, how many known original manuscripts, and the time span from the first known manuscript and when the document was authored.
Author No. of Copies Time Span
Caesar 10 1.000 years
Plato (Tetralogies) 7 1,200 years
Tacitus (Annals) 20 1,000 years
Pliny the Younger (History) 7 750 years
Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum) 8 800 years
Homer (Iliad) 643 500 years
New Testament Over 24,000 25 years
After looking at the chart above, which document do you believe is the most trustworthy in being accurate regarding being closest to the original? Homer's Iliad does not even come close to the New Testament. Time span is critical when determining if the manuscript is close to the original. The longer the time span, the more of a chance of error. The first New Testament manuscript has only a 25 year span compared to 500 years for Iliad. Yet many of our readers would read Iliad as the gospel before the Bible.
That may be true, but look how many vershions there are of the Illiad. Even if they are a word off, that is extreamly important in somthing you may center your life around. For example, according to Reader's Digest a bible macker messed up on the bibe and put "Though shalt commet adultery", as you can see is a big differance.
We should also mention that of the 24,000 New Testament manuscripts they are 15 different languages and they all are accurate in their translation.
Similar does not mean accurate, if there was a common screw up or a screw up befor that then it whould translate to all of them incorrectly.
Let's look at one more point regarding the accuracy of manuscripts. It is the concept of textual variations and textual corruption. We will compare Iliad with the New Testament. The Iliad has about 15,600 textual line variations compared to the New Testament which has about 20,000 textual line variations. Not bad considering there are over 23,000 more manuscripts of the New Testament than the Iliad.
Still more....
The Iliad has 764 lines of textual corruption whereas the New Testament only has 40 lines of textual corruption. So, which is the more accurate document?
Once again screwing up one word on somthing you may center your life around can have huge consiquences.
Bible Not Accurate
Even with all the evidence we have provided, some will still say the Bible is not accurate.
Evidince? You have provided no evidince, just a few comparisons and just hoping that the statistics are correct.
Archaeology and Science is continuously proving the Bible to be accurate. Over and over again, archaeological digs are finding artifacts that prove the various stories that are in the Bible. Read More.
Yes, if you ignore the things they found false like the great flood and seven day creation.
One of the ways to prove the Bible is accurate is to explore the concept of prophecy. There are over 60 prophecies in the Old Testament that speak about Jesus. Every one of the prophecies were fulfilled in the life of Jesus.
Many things wrong with this
1. Self fufilling prophacies. For example if Jesus heard he whould eat a sandwitch on monday, then he whould do so.
2. If they were changed to fit what happened.
3. They ignore the prophocies that did not come true.
4. Using this then Appalo also exsisted, his prophits got several prophisies correct as well.
5. vague prophocies have to come true, in some way like " You will meat a misterios stranger", so unless you never moved you whould probably meat a stranger, and probably one who is misterios
The Bible was written over a 1,500 year span so there is no way that many of these prophecies could have just been 'redicted' by the authors. There were over 40 authors so there is no way they could have conspired with each other.
Why not? We have been looking in the desert, with modern tecknology, for a group of terrorist much larger than that and have found few, it whould be easy for only forty people to do it.
Encyclopedia Britannica
So significant is Jesus in man's history that the Encyclopedia Britannica has 20,000 words in describing Jesus. His description took more space than was given to Aristotle, Cicero, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed or Napoleon Bonaparte. Why would there be so much material on a man who was never born? The Encyclopedia Britannica does not state as fact the crucifixion or resurrection of Jesus, but there is no doubt in this document regarding the validity of the Bible regarding there was a Jesus of Nazareth who was the founder of the Christian faith.
I could write more then that on a story book caracter. WHat is your point? Just becasue there is a ton of somthing does not make it true.
Jesus is recorded as a fact, as is His death, burial and missing body in the Reader's Digest Book of Facts, 1989.
Isn't there even a dozen tombs said to be the resting place of Jesus? How could you say you know his barial if you do not know were he was even barried. On top of that, even if he was real and his body was gone that means nothing, as it happened with an alchemest named Nickolas Flamel.
It should be noted that Christianity is a religion based upon relationship, not knowledge. It is a religion of faith not logic. The information provided is to help answer questions, but ultimately you must believe in the gospel accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ because you believe in the claims of Jesus that we are sinners and we need a savior.
How To Accept Christ
Lovly. Now it is saying " No, don't think for yourself! Let us do it for you! Who needs logic and actual proof?"
Now show ACTUAL PROOF not statistics and assumptions.
