There were two convicting arguments that Mark Straus states in his ACE Interview- “Reliability of The New Testament.” The first was of the New Testament and the second one was of Science and Art of the Texture Criticism. Inspiration and inerrancy apply to the original manuscripts. Our modern-day translations are the Word of God only the extent that they accurately reflect the original texts, which are produced under the inspiration of God (Praxis, pg. 37-38). First, it should be understood that the personality of the human author was incorporated into the pages of scripture. God did not simply dictate the word of Scripture to the human authors, but rather, He used the giftedness and abilities of the writers of the Scripture (Etzel & Gutierrez,
…show more content…
We have more than five thousand manuscripts handwritten copies of the New Testament. Many very early and some of them in a few decades of when they were written which is by far early than any ancient works of literature. A few of the New Testament books were written on parchment and rolled into scrolls. However, the church soon began using paper made from papyrus reeds grown in swampy areas (Towns, pg. 20). The amount of evidence that we have to compare to other ancient works is one of the things that is called data it's hard evidence I don’t think no one ever disagree with that. There's no other source literature in that period that was tested as the new testament. With certain rules that we can gauge the way, the copyist attended to make mistakes as they pass down these documents. There is a broad consensus among Biblical Scholars whether they are considerative or whether they are liberals we have something very close to the originals authors wrote sometimes it's stated to be things like 95 percent or so of what the authors wrote. I think we can have confidence that we have something very close to the original copies. The Bible is much more than an accurate textbook that tells about God’s people in the Old and New Testaments. Because it is accurate, we can rely on its message; but there’s another supernatural
We have more than five thousand manuscripts handwritten copies of the New Testament. Many very early and some of them in a few decades of when they were written which is by far early than any ancient works of literature. A few of the New Testament books were written on parchment and rolled into scrolls. However, the church soon began using paper made from papyrus reeds grown in swampy areas (Towns, pg. 20). The amount of evidence that we have to compare to other ancient works is one of the things that is called data it's hard evidence I don’t think no one ever disagree with that. There's no other source literature in that period that was tested as the new testament. With certain rules that we can gauge the way, the copyist attended to make mistakes as they pass down these documents. There is a broad consensus among Biblical Scholars whether they are considerative or whether they are liberals we have something very close to the originals authors wrote sometimes it's stated to be things like 95 percent or so of what the authors wrote. I think we can have confidence that we have something very close to the original copies. The Bible is much more than an accurate textbook that tells about God’s people in the Old and New Testaments. Because it is accurate, we can rely on its message; but there’s another supernatural