Practical evidence of Christianity part 2

Has anyone ever been told that the Bible is unreliable because of how long ago it was written and there’s no proof?

Inspired by Voddie Baucham

Dean of Theology at African Christian University in Lusaka, Zambia

The basics

• It predicated the course of human nature, an increase in wars, and natural disasters

• Matthew, Mark, Luke, John- accounts from different points of view. Corroborating eye witness testimony

• Prediction of future Kingdoms in Daniel

  
  

Bible verses

• 2 Peter 1:16- Peter clarifies that they were not following myths they heard but eye-witness accounts

• Romans 1:20- evidence in God is in the laws of nature

• Prologues (chapter 1) of Luke and John describe how the writings were compiled through eyewitness testimony

• Psalm 22 (specifically verse 16) predicts Jesus' crucifixion before the torture technique was invented.

From Voddie Baucham

• Hundreds of eyewitnesses were still alive when 1 Corinthians was written

• Acts of supernatural events during the lifetime of Jesus fulfill the Old Testament prophecy 400 years apart. The question should be reliability, not whether it is written by a man. All works, trusted and untrusted, are written by man.

• Internally consistent, 3 languages: Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic. 40 authors, most of whom never met each other, over a period of 1,500 years, telling one woven together story.

• Everyone wants to apply science to the Bible, but the scientific method cannot be applied to history. History requires eye-witness testimony and accuracy. There is no evidence against the Bible.

Has anyone ever brought up the issue that the Bible isn’t reliable because of the translations? Original translations and English translations

For starters, the belief is that the Bible is written by divine influence. If you believe in God, you believe he can get his words to those who choose to listen.

The Bible was written based on modern historical standards

The Bible is really a collection of historical documents. It was written by people who claim to be eyewitnesses or claim to know eyewitnesses from different perspectives. It was written during a time when these eyewitnesses were still alive, possibly presenting the opportunity for any claims to be refuted. For example, the letters of the New Testament from Paul (Galatians, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philemon, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians) that were written and sent to advise various churches and people were written during a time when people who witnessed Jesus were still alive to confirm or deny the events that occurred. Prophecies that were confirmed to be a few hundred years old by the time Jesus arrived were fulfilled. The book of Daniel also predicts and describes the height of power of the Catholic church. This implies to me that there was divine inspiration in the writing vs purely human opinion.

The translation issue

The issue with the translations of the Bible being incorrect starts with the manuscripts. There are 6,000 handwritten manuscripts for the New Testament, so they can’t be changed or manipulated (Old Testament has 731). If you compare that to other historical documents, we only have 10 manuscripts documenting Julius Caesar’s conquests. For Aristotle’s writings, there are 5 manuscripts; Herodotus and Homer have about 10. Manuscripts aren’t originals; they are writings ancient enough to be deemed authentic, and we have documented as historical philosophers and events with far less written evidence than the New Testament. This also makes the issue of wrong translations difficult.

For example, Caesar's manuscripts came 900 years after the originals, and Aristotle was 1,400 years after. The New Testament manuscripts are from before 120 AD, very close to the originals. Within decades.

Translations were already occurring as the New Testament was being written

The other issue with translations is that when the word of Jesus was spread during the time of the New Testament, it was already being translated into Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. So there were already multiple translations as the New Testament was being written. So there are varying translations to compare, and there is no central source that needs to be trusted. The early writings also have notes from churches they were sent to that help to add context. There are too many manuscripts and translations by too many people that created a consensus of what the text said for it to be doctored or manipulated by a specific group of people. To me, this makes it more reliable than any other historical story I’ve studied in school: more people studied it, more translations, more languages, more manuscripts written closer to the time period of the originals.

“Caesar's manuscripts came 900 years after the originals, and Aristotle was 1,400 years after. The New Testament manuscripts are from before 120 AD, very close to the originals. Within decades.”

What translation errors in the Bible really look like

The group with the best case for issues with translations is Muslims. Jesus spoke in Aramaic, so they believe they have the best translation of his words and have undone possible manipulation in the English translations (however much of the New Testament and Jesus’s words were recorded in Greek). For example, Matthew 10:34 says, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” From Aramaic, it translates to “I have not come to spread harmony, but to settle disputes”. The verses that follow talk about how you must put God before everything else, which can lead to disharmony everywhere, including your household. Matthew 10:34 has been used to start wars, but in context, it fits the Aramaic translation. This is corroborated by other texts.

In 2 Corinthians 10:4-5, Paul says, “for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ”. Further proving the point that part of the mission is to spread the truth to settle disputes, despite the friction it may cause.

Another example is Jesus' statement on the cross to the thief in Luke 23:43, where he says, “I tell you the truth (comma), today you will be with me in paradise”. It sounds like the thief will go straight to heaven when he dies that day, and many Christians have taken it to mean this. But if you move the comma, it reads “I tell you the truth today (comma), you will be with me in paradise”. If you look up comma placement in this verse, you’ll see it’s a big debate amongst Bible analysis groups. The original Greek translations had 0 commas. But analysis determines that there are more discrepancies in what was known to have occurred that day, with the current comma placement versus moving it. Evidence of the resurrection schedule elsewhere in the Bible reveals the truth.

So to overcome the issue of translations, context is key.