Forum Home | Login

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

A Critic's Mind Changed

built on solid evidence

As a student of the bible, I love to hear about the discoveries that have over the years only given much credence to this book. There have been many stories of brilliant minds that have attempted to disprove the scriptures only to succumb to the realization that the bible is truly a magnificant piece of literature unlike any other.

William Albright, known for his reputation as one of the great archaeologists, said: "There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition."

He also said: "The exessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the 18th & 19th centuires, certain phases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognititon to the value of the Bible as a source of history."

Millar Burrows of Yale observes: "Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. it has shown in a number of instances that these views rest on false assumptions and unreal, artifical schemes of historical development."

He also exposes the cause of much unbelief: "The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural."

This is still true today. How many of us are coming to the table with our predisposed beliefs based on what we've just picked up along the way? I hear alot of repititon from those that have no idea where they've heard such and such. It's like gossip. They are picking up and passing on what they have had whispered in their ears. I did this myself for a while until I realized I really had nothing to back myself up on other than what I heard from another.

He adds: "On the whole, archaelogical work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine". :

Sir William Ramsay is regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever to have lived. He was a student in the German historical school of the mid 19th century. He believed the Book of Acts was a product of the mid 2nd century AD. He was very convinced of this belief. In his research to make a topographical study of Asia Minor he was compelled to consider the writings of Luke, the physician. As a result he was forced to do a complete reversal of his beliefs due to the overwhelming evidence uncovered in his research. He said this about his change of mind:

"I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. it did not then lie in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recenly I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topgraphy , antiquities and socieity of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a 2nd century composition and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations."

Ramsay concluded after 30 years of study that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy......."this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." Ramsay also says: "Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness."

To even consider this book coming from an all powerful God it MUST meet certain requirements. It has to be transmitted to us accurately from the time it was originally written so we have exactly what God wanted us to have. Next it must be correct when it deal with dates, events and places. A book that has these things mixed up has no right to claim it comes from an infallible God.

If you test the NT documents with the same standard of tests applied to any of the Greek classics, the evidence overwhelmingly favors the NT. If someone states that we have a reliable text of classics, then that same person would be forced to admit that the NT is also just as reliable.

Actually many don't realize that the original NT copies were in better textual shape than the 37 plays of Shakespeare written in the 17th century, after the invention of printing. In every one of his plays there are gaps in the printed text where we have no idea what originally was said. Textual scholars were forced to make good guesses to fill in the blanks. With the abundance of existing manuscripts of the NT we know nothing has been lost through the transmission of the text.

Those who contend that the Bible is unreliable historically are not historians or archeologists. While I can't prove the bible is inspired or written by the very hand of God, (although I believe it to be true,) I do believe the evidence supports the claim the Bible certainly is the very word of God.

"

history

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

(WWW Link)

I'd like to invite you to a conversation. But I'll understand if you're afraid.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

I'd say "bring it on" but really Emp, why would I want to after reading your first few words?

If you're tired of us, as you say, why bother? You've already got your mind made up.

What do I have to gain? Getting ridiculed yet again?

Successfully updated karma reason!

What do I have to gain? Getting ridiculed yet again?

Exactly why I stay off of those threads.

Successfully updated karma reason!

we know nothing has been lost through the transmission of the text.

translation is a different matter.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

translation is a different matter.

Yes, and that's why you stick to reputable and widely accepted translations that seek to honor the original Greek and Hebrew.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I am not trying to offend you in any way, but you have to admit the following 2 facts:

I believe the bible is based on history, but that doesn't necassarily mean that everything in the bible is true.

History is a very unstable thing, it is the point of view of who ever wrote it down, even then it can drastically change (Columbus for example). You don't hve to go back in time very far to see examples of this, ask people what happened on 9/11, and you will get everything from missle attack, to govt conspericy. It would be interesting to see what the history books say about 9/11, 500 years from now.

You stated that you were unhappy that people contend that the Bible is unreliable historically... (not in those exact wordsm but I think I got your intent).

I believe that all of histry is extremely unreliable, and I mean EXTREMELY!!!!

With out just 'blindly believing'...My question is why would the bible be any different?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yes, and that's why you stick to reputable and widely accepted translations that seek to honor the original Greek and Hebrew.

you still lose stuff in translation.

for instance the Hebrew words used for the Exodus means reed sea. but the Greeks translated it to red sea. now i don't know which is correct. but i think that the Hebrew would be more correct.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

I believe the bible is based on history, but that doesn't necassarily mean that everything in the bible is true.

History is a very unstable thing, it is the point of view of who ever wrote it down, even then it can drastically change (Columbus for example). You don't hve to go back in time very far to see examples of this, ask people what happened on 9/11, and you will get everything from missle attack, to govt conspericy. It would be interesting to see what the history books say about 9/11, 500 years from now.

Yes, but the bible is more than just history...it's history, poetry, philosophy, prophecy some of it fulfilled, some yet to be.

What you said is true about asking people about history and getting diff viewpoints. Yes, but the bible is not like that. What you have is a compilation of 66 books written by about 40 authors that are in complete agreement even tho these individual books span a period of 1500 years in three diff continents. That's amazing. The only way this can be is it's not like any other book. It has a supernatural component to it. As a Christian who has studied this book for many years I have to believe it's written by God himself using these men as human instuments much like we use a pen as an instrument to write down our own thoughts.

You stated that you were unhappy that people contend that the Bible is unreliable historically... (not in those exact wordsm but I think I got your intent).

I believe that all of histry is extremely unreliable, and I mean EXTREMELY!!!!

Again, the bible has NOT been proven unreliable in any area of science, history, archeology etc. Until it has I have to believe it's divine in nature. While I can't prove EVERY nuance in scripture is reliable or true...what I can say is that person, place or event mentioned in scripture that can be verified has been proven to be true. Let me ask you this....have you ever taken the time to read this book? The whole thing?

With out just 'blindly believing'...My question is why would the bible be any different?

I don't believe in blind faith. I don't believe we are called to believe in blind faith. God says many times in scripture to "test" the spirits or to "discern" what we are reading or hearing or to be "wise" as serpents. Read about Gideon who "tested" God with his fleece and know that God wants us to "test" him and prove that he is who he says he is as written down in scripture. I have yet to find anything untrue about him doing these things. In fact, God has more than "proven" himself to me.

If you haven't found these things out yourself (and it sounds like you haven't) I'd like to challange you to give it one year. Take this new year...give it to God of the bible and prayfully read this book. What's one year out of a lifetime? It could be a life changing event that may change your life for all eternity.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

for instance the Hebrew words used for the Exodus means reed sea. but the Greeks translated it to red sea. now i don't know which is correct. but i think that the Hebrew would be more correct.

What exactly are you referring to? Exodus is the title of the Book "Exodus" and means "departure" I don't think "Exodus" is used in scripture otherwise.

The English title comes from the title in the Septuagint. The Exodus (way out) is the principal theme of the book.

As far as reed sea and red sea is concerned (I'd have to check)......are the reeds red in color? It sounds vaguly like something I've heard before. If so, I think that could be the reason for the names and therefore are one in the same.

Successfully updated karma reason!

If so, I think that could be the reason for the names and therefore are one in the same.

there used to be in egypt a sea of reeds. the greeks supposedly miss translated the hebrew word for reed to red. or maybe it was a miss spell.

but as i have stated to gid before translate the word you into spanish.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

there used to be in egypt a sea of reeds. the greeks supposedly miss translated the hebrew word for reed to red. or maybe it was a miss spell

Here's what I found just doing a quick search on Wiki:

Red Sea is a direct translation of the Greek Erythra Thalassa (Ερυθρά Θάλασσα), Latin Mare Rubrum, Arabic Al-Baḥr Al-Aḥmar (البحر الأحمر), and Tigrinya Qeyḥ bāḥrī (ቀይሕ ባሕሪ).

The name of the sea may signify the seasonal blooms of the red-coloured cyanobacteria Trichodesmium erythraeum near the water's surface. Some suggest that it refers to the mineral-rich red mountains nearby which are called Harei Edom (הרי אדום). Edom, meaning "ruddy complexion", is also an alternative Hebrew name for the red-faced biblical character Esau (brother of Jacob), and the nation descended from him, the Edomites, which in turn provides yet another possible origin for Red Sea.[citation needed]

As I said, I remember something about the reeds being red and quite possibly that's the reason for Reed Sea vs Red Sea.

Regardless, I don't get your point about how this really messes us up with translation problems. The sea being called the Red or Reed Sea does not make a difference either way.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The sea being called the Red or Reed Sea does not make a difference either way.

except in this case they are two different bodies of water. or i should say were two different bodies of water. basically a lake with reeds in it.

i am getting this off of the history channel so i don't know if it is or isn't.

personnally i think it was the red sea.

the red sea as you describe and

but as i have stated to gid before translate the word you into spanish.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

the red sea as you describe and
but as i have stated to gid before translate the word you into spanish.

ya....and.....?

I'm totally not getting your point here. I don't know Spanish so I looked it up and this is what I found.

The fact that Spanish has two sets of pronouns that mean "you" — the familiar informal "you," which is tú in the singular and vosotros in the plural, and the formal "you," which is usted in the singular and ustedes in the plural — is often a source of confusion for Spanish students. While there aren't any rules that are always valid for determining which one to use, this guide will steer you in the right direction most of the time.

So what? What does this have to do with the subject at hand?

Successfully updated karma reason!

there are three words for you in spanish. depending on how well you know someone tells you which word to use.

but when you translate that to english it doesn't matter how well you know someone.

in other words you lose something in translation. even tho the translation is correct.

Successfully updated karma reason!

kingbee

Join Date 04/2004

+42

the bible has NOT been proven unreliable in any area of science, history, archeology etc.

nor has it been proven reliable in many areas of science, history, archeology, etc.

what proof is available--factual proof supported by physical evidence--of the exodus? of noah's flood? of the simultaneous creation of all animal life?

Successfully updated karma reason!

what proof is available--factual proof supported by physical evidence--of the exodus? of noah's flood? of the simultaneous creation of all animal life?

what proof---factual proof is there that doesn't not support this theory.

oh and genesis chapter 1 verse 1 supports the big bang theory.

and remember 3000 years ago they didn't know what a bang(explosion) was.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

nor has it been proven reliable in many areas of science, history, archeology, etc.

Really? Did you read the quotes above in the original article by the experts? What do you know about Albright? There are hundreds more I can give you. I can also give you unlimited amount of finds in all areas of the spectrum which supported scripture in later discoveries. Some even thought to be a hoax until later discoveries proved scripture...yet again....to be accurate.

All I'm saying is those things that can be proven reliable from the accounts of scripture have been. Names, places and events. Not everything has been proven without a doubt like the ark or Jesus dividing 5 loaves into enough to feed 5,000. If and when the ark is found, then that would just be another piece that would be explained away like everything else is.

But we read in scripture well before the astronomers that the earth was a circle. We also read that the earth hung on nothing. This is what Columbus was going on. He believed in scripture enough to stake a claim on it.

what proof---factual proof is there that doesn't not support this theory.

Exactly. Until then we either believe or disbelive on other verifiable events. Why lean on the side of disbelief when there are other things that have been proven to be accurate?

Successfully updated karma reason!

This is what Columbus was going on. He believed in scripture enough to stake a claim on it.

HAHAHAHA Yeah, since it was available in the 1400s to anyone, not just the priests and not just in Latin . . . no, wait, it wasn't.

Columbus was no devout follower of God. Read his own writings if you don't believe me. He was going off what astronomers of the day had proven, and what the church was adamantly against.

Good chuckle, my friend.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

Good chuckle, my friend.

please SC...don't call me friend.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

the church was adamantly against.

This is true. The rest is not.

The bible and the organized church of the day....sad to say...shouldn't be but were two different entities. They were certainly not on the same page.

Successfully updated karma reason!

This is true. The rest is not.

Prove it, mayhap? I've read Columbus' entire journal, in the original language - no translation to gum up the works (which as has been discussed in this thread already). The man was no god-fearing individual who was inspired by the Bible. Anyone who's told you different has sold you bull.

End of story.

please SC...don't call me friend.

Wow, very "Christian" of you.

You know what? You got it. I'll never refer to you as friend again.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

Wow, very "Christian" of you.

No SC. I'm just referring to you using the term....when you don't mean it!! My friends don't attack me like you do. It has nothing to do with my being a Christian or not. I do know who my friends are and you don't act like a friend.

I'll never refer to you as friend again

well at least now you're being honest. I appreciate honesty.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

Prove it, mayhap?

The man was no god-fearing individual who was inspired by the Bible. Anyone who's told you different has sold you bull.

Really? Have you ever read Columbus's "Book of Prophecies?" Well you may want to check out this MORMON site. Here's an excerpt and a link.

Was the discovery made by accident, or was Columbus led by God? The Book of Mormon says he was led by the Holy Spirit, and now we have confirmation of this in Columbus's own words, as well as additional new insights. An authentic Columbus manuscript has gone virtually unexamined until recent years. In Columbus's Book of Prophecies, translated into English in 1991, he provides his own answers about Divine influence in his accomplishments.

In His Own Words
Columbus's title for what is called his Book of Prophecies, conveys the essence of his vision: Notebook of authorities, statements, opinions and prophecies on the subject of the recovery of God's holy city and mountain of Zion, and on the discovery and evangelization of the islands of the Indies and of all other peoples and nations. To Ferdinand and Isabella, our hispanic rulers (West and Kling 1991:2,101).

The book is a personal collection of letters, scriptures (from both the Old and New Testaments, as well as the Apocrypha) and quotations from Biblical commentators such as St. Isidore, Rabbi Samuel and St. Augustine, and other sources. It was prepared for the benefit of the King and Queen of Spain to assure them that his mission, and their support, had been a fulfillment of prophecy. Columbus divided his material into four parts. The first is introductory, followed by three sections entitled: "Concerning the Past," "Concerning the Present and Future" and "Concerning the Future. In the Last Days."

Columbus compiled this work in 1501-1502 between his third and fourth voyages to the New World, using many handwritten notes as well as marginal notes he had made in books in his personal library. These notes lead West and Kling to conclude that there can be little doubt that Columbus's systematic study of Bible history and prophecies began at least as early as 1481, concurrently to forming his great plan" (1991:91). Columbus's Book of Prophecies culminated a lifetime of deep religious conviction and intense scriptural study and interpretation.

Today the original manuscript resides in Spain in the Biblioteca Colombina at the Cathedral of Seville. In 1894-four hundred years after Columbus's first voyage to the New World-it was finally published in Spanish. Two translations of Columbus's Book of Prophecies are now available in English for the first time (Brigham 1991; West and Kling 1991).

Columbus's own testimony that he was led by the Holy Spirit was made available in English when Peter Marshall and David Manuel published in their book, The Light and the Glory (1977:17), excerpts from an earlier private translation of the Book of Prophecies by Kling (see also West and Kling 1991:105). Brigham's recently published translation reads:

... our Lord opened to my understanding (I could sense his hand upon me), so that it became clear to me that it was feasible to navigate from here to the Indies; and he unlocked within me the determination to execute the idea.... Who doubts that this illumination was from the Holy Spirit? I attest that he [the Spirit], with marvelous rays of light, consoled me through the holy and sacred Scriptures.... encouraging me to proceed, and, continually, without ceasing for a moment, they inflame me with a sense of great urgency (Brigham 1991:179).

WWW Link

There's a whole bunch more.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Exodus is the title of the Book "Exodus" and means "departure" I don't think "Exodus" is used in scripture otherwise.

FYI:
Exodus is a Greek word. If you look in a Chumash or Tanakh in the Hebrew this book will be called Shemo't (Names). Based upon the first Hebrew word of the book. This would explain why you don't see the word 'Exodus' again.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

Exodus is a Greek word. If you look in a Chumash or Tanakh in the Hebrew this book will be called Shemo't (Names). Based upon the first Hebrew word of the book. This would explain why you don't see the word 'Exodus' again.

Thanks AD for the info. I knew it was Greek (way out) but didn't know about Shemo't. From what I understood the title of the book is taken from the first verse..."these are the names of." Is that one word in Hebrew (Shemo't)?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time: