The Bible as we have today as found in the Greek New Testament (NA-28) and the Hebrew Old Testament are authentic to the original autographs as possible. Each of these published manuscripts have a unique history and verification along the way. The Hebrew Old Testament was written in Biblical Hebrew which is different from modern Hebrew.
According to Josh McDowell, the Masoretic scribes from the 500-900 CE had the copying with exact precision down to the letters on a page. Scribes could not copy from memory and had to match word for word and word and letter counts were in play. These texts were the oldest to 1947 and the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The manuscript of Isaiah from the oldest 980 CE manuscript had a 95% accuracy rate compared …show more content…
Someone once said, that the problem with archeology in the Bible is the Bible is untrue till proven correct by outside sources. As an example, the Bible was false because there was evidence of the Hittites till information was discovered in 1906.
Many of the people mentioned in the Book of Acts are mentioned by Jospehues who was a captured general of the the Jewish Revolt that led to the destruction of the Temple. The Roman historian Tacitus also mentions several people in the Book of Acts. The New Testament is based in history.
The final area of evidence relies upon the Gospels and Acts itself. The issue comes down to the validity of Jesus’s testimony and the effect that it had on people. The issue is the resurrection of the Messiah is of prime importance as moves the issue of myth versus a real story to the pinnacle. The issue starts with the book, Who Moved the Stone by Frank Morrison. The question Rev. Morrison asks is simple what person(s) moved the stone over the tomb of Jesus? This same theme has been picked by McDowell and many …show more content…
They could have taken the body and buried it somewhere else. This senecio is highly unlikely as the body could have easily been produced. Could there be anyone else?
Recently, a Christian fiction book called A Skeleton in G-d 's Closet by Paul Maier proposed the idea that the same Nicodimous of John 3 who was a member of the Pharisee party could have accidentally stolen the body of Jesus. The reason that is given is he took the body to bury and anoint and there was so much confusion he was scared about what happened. He then buried the body with a note which was found in the 1990s. Needless to say there are problems with this idea such as guards, permission, and a body. So, could there be anyone else?
One idea is says Jesus moved the stone, he was not dead and he recovered in the cave (Turner). So, Jesus who went through the trauma of a crucifixion, loss of blood, in a weakened state still recovering (Edwards) moved the stone with no handles on the inside. This is perhaps the worst or silliest explanation offered. Edwards, demonstrated in his article that Jesus would have been in no shape to move the stone, assuming he even survived. So, once again, is there anyone
According to Josh McDowell, the Masoretic scribes from the 500-900 CE had the copying with exact precision down to the letters on a page. Scribes could not copy from memory and had to match word for word and word and letter counts were in play. These texts were the oldest to 1947 and the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The manuscript of Isaiah from the oldest 980 CE manuscript had a 95% accuracy rate compared …show more content…
Someone once said, that the problem with archeology in the Bible is the Bible is untrue till proven correct by outside sources. As an example, the Bible was false because there was evidence of the Hittites till information was discovered in 1906.
Many of the people mentioned in the Book of Acts are mentioned by Jospehues who was a captured general of the the Jewish Revolt that led to the destruction of the Temple. The Roman historian Tacitus also mentions several people in the Book of Acts. The New Testament is based in history.
The final area of evidence relies upon the Gospels and Acts itself. The issue comes down to the validity of Jesus’s testimony and the effect that it had on people. The issue is the resurrection of the Messiah is of prime importance as moves the issue of myth versus a real story to the pinnacle. The issue starts with the book, Who Moved the Stone by Frank Morrison. The question Rev. Morrison asks is simple what person(s) moved the stone over the tomb of Jesus? This same theme has been picked by McDowell and many …show more content…
They could have taken the body and buried it somewhere else. This senecio is highly unlikely as the body could have easily been produced. Could there be anyone else?
Recently, a Christian fiction book called A Skeleton in G-d 's Closet by Paul Maier proposed the idea that the same Nicodimous of John 3 who was a member of the Pharisee party could have accidentally stolen the body of Jesus. The reason that is given is he took the body to bury and anoint and there was so much confusion he was scared about what happened. He then buried the body with a note which was found in the 1990s. Needless to say there are problems with this idea such as guards, permission, and a body. So, could there be anyone else?
One idea is says Jesus moved the stone, he was not dead and he recovered in the cave (Turner). So, Jesus who went through the trauma of a crucifixion, loss of blood, in a weakened state still recovering (Edwards) moved the stone with no handles on the inside. This is perhaps the worst or silliest explanation offered. Edwards, demonstrated in his article that Jesus would have been in no shape to move the stone, assuming he even survived. So, once again, is there anyone