37

Commentators give a number of explanations for the silence of the Synoptists on the raising of Lazarus: To protect Lazarus from persecution Differing source material Distinct criteria for what to include The Synoptics narrate other miracles, and saw no need to include this one as well The geographical and narrative focus of the Synoptics differs from that ...


27

"Manuscript Evidence", as the question implies, serves to provide evidence that the Bible has been transmitted accurately throughout time. It does not prove that the Bible is God's word. The usefulness of knowing what manuscript evidence means, and what it tells us about the accurate transmission of Scripture through time is to address the statement that "...


25

Again... This is not about the validity of the YEC view. The point of this is not to reveal "Truth", the point is to accurately explain the doctrinal significance of the view, from the perspective of those who believe the view, so that we have it on record on site. The answer is quite simple, actually, and laid out very well on the Answers in Genesis ...


17

I'd like to start out by pointing out that history is a murky subject. We're all familiar with the saying that "history is always written by the winners". There are plenty of things that are accepted as historical fact that are either in dispute, or that are later proved false by new evidence. Just because something is regarded as reliable, accepted ...


16

Rephrasing what you said slightly more succinctly- it isn't about history, it's about trustworthiness. Creationists see all theories that attempt to explain origins as inherently matters of faith. One either trusts that matter could have somehow been there, packed so densely together that it caused a universe creating explosion, and then developed strictly ...


15

You are starting from three incorrect postulates: Scribes are just copyists, not interpreters of the law. The doctrine of preservation of scripture is the same as inerrancy. Variants have semantic importance All three of those need to be true for your statement to make sense. Unfortunately, none of them are. 1. Scribes aren't just secretaries. They are ...


12

One major point to consider is that there isn't just "one" author. First and foremost, the "Bible" is a collection of 66 (or 73) discrete books written by at least 40 different authors over a period of over 1500 years. To say that at least 40 authors over 15 centuries all had the same hidden agenda is conspiratorial thinking at its best. The Old ...


10

It's important to understand something about the origins of the Bible. The authors of the various books within it did not sit down to write "The Bible". They intended to write stuff that would be helpful to other people for various reasons: in the case of the Gospels, so people would know the true story of Jesus' life and teachings, and for the letters to ...


9

Sometimes it is best to see a theologian in action to determine their view and attitude about inerrancy. There is a classical error in most of our Bibles in Matthew 27:9 where Matthew means to quote Zechariah 11:13 concerning the 'thirty pieces of silver' but it says ‘Jeremiah’. I have glanced at a few modern explanations about this and it seems ...


9

The basic rules and assumptions are as follows: That we are defending the notion that the Bible is, indeed, inspired, and therefore inerrant and infallible. It cannot contain errors, and if a true contradiction is found, it is, by definition, an error. Either one is correct and the other is wrong, or they are both wrong. Either way, the Bible is no ...


7

Below is my answer to the original question: "What are the arguments for Matthew's canonicity that don't appeal to Matthean authorship or the authority of the church?" I have leaving it as is, because it is still valid answer to that part of the question (and good information), although not all of it makes sense as a reply to the edited question. First, I ...


6

If you read the whole chapter you'll see that this verse talks about teachers of the law spreading false interpretations of it. It is not about alterations of the OT scriptures themselves.


6

The only passages that come to mind regarding weather patterns in the end times have to do with clouds: Joel 2:2 A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years ...


6

Thanks for asking. There are some important principles here. First it is important to understand that in Matthew 7 Jesus is not talking about trees. He is using trees as a metaphor for people. To try to learn about trees from his statement is a wrong approach. Looking at the Garden of Eden, the Tree was in fact bringing forth good fruit - its purpose was ...


5

Christians are very diverse on how they handle this type of criticism. Probably the most visible school of thought in today's media are the literalists. These Christians accept that the Bible was fully authored by God and is complete and infallible. For them, Gilgamesh is either fiction or a pagan account of the Genesis story. Hammurabi's code is a set of ...


5

There is no such verse. In Genesis, God promised the exact opposite: “As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.” Genesis 8:22 I'm sure though, there might be a group out there that interprets one verse or another to mean that there will be this kind of trouble in the ...


5

When the bible was written and the first people read it, why did they assume that its content was the truth? For the New Testament there is a simple answer to this question: The people who first read it where in a good position to either already know or able to verify the veracity of the claims made in the text. Once the most extraordinary are confirmed ...


5

What I'm looking for is an answer as to why the "Creation Science Evangelists" ... are willing to go around preaching something that gets them laughed at...Why is it so important to them? Is there a doctrinal reason, or are they just that stuck in their ways that they're unwilling to change? They see a willingness to yield on this point as similar to ...


5

I believe it is simply because when Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote their respective Gospels, Lazarus was still a living testimony to Christ having raised him to life. They had no need to mention the miracle because it was so well known and could easily be confirmed by Lazarus himself. John wrote his gospel much later and by this time Lazarus had once more gone ...


5

How many early New Testament manuscripts do we have? You ask about the first four centuries, until about 400 AD. I am inclined to initially answer through 300 AD, because I believe that period is more important for historical* reasons. This page on Wikipedia lists the 130 papyri of the New Testament that we know of, together with what content each has. For ...


4

The discovery of ancient manuscripts that had been lost for centuries presents a puzzle. We can compare manuscripts and use the tools of textual criticism to make a best-guess effort to recover the original text, but ultimately we can't be 100% certain about its exact words. The question of the Bible's reliability is related to the issue of biblical ...


4

It is ironic that your question would make a statement concerning the legitimacy of the Word of God when Jeremiah asked the same question to God’s people. In context, this verse is revealing how they would take God’s word and change it “falsely.” This was spoken by Jeremiah in the context of God’s people leaving God, and living their own lives as if they ...


4

First, it is important to realize that ancient writers almost never quoted anything in the way we do today. The normal way to "quote" was via allusion - the reader was expected to recognize the author's intent via a shared background. Even when quotes are explicit ("it is written", they are often not exact (ranging from free paraphrase to "memory error" - ...


4

It's not written in any of the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) that Jesus was alone. Someone in a comment below prior to this edit referenced a hymn called "Jesus walked this lonesome valley" - this is an assumption by the composer. Aside from Satan's obvious presence, no further information is given about other witnesses of the event - we could ...


4

The Bible scholars involved in the translating of the English Standard Version say this: Acts 20:28 (ESV): “to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.” Refers to the blood of Christ... the blood of God’s own Son, which would be a legitimate alternative reading of the Greek. Some Greek manuscripts read “the church of the Lord.” ...


3

For those who have grown up in the church or around the Bible for many years, giving a defense of the origins and reliability of the Bible is something they have not really looked into. As you know, there are more and more people who have no such familiarity with or reverence for the scriptures. This is causing many believers to also question the ...


3

I am going to answer as a layman, from my own experience, as I truly have little knowledge of how our Bible came about and the subject has still never peaked my interest enough for me to learn. What I can say is that I am absolutely certain that the Bible is our only infallible guide in matters of religion and alone can be trusted. Here are my personal ...


3

The Aleppo Codex is a bound manuscript of the Hebrew Bible, written by scribes called Masoretes in Tiberias, Israel, around 930 C.E. They surfaced in Aleppo, Syria, sometime in the second half of the 15th century; preserved nearly intact in a synagogue for centuries, until the 20th century. The Aleppo Codex belongs to a large “family” of Masoretic ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible