Apologetics: Defending Hope - Week 2

Question: Did anybody have a chance to share the gospel last week?

I want to preface this class by saying thanks for coming back. Thought I might have scared y’all away with as much information as we covered last week.

Two Big Things to Remember from Week 1:

1. Worldview - a person’s beliefs that influences how they see the world around them. Your worldview is your answer to the big questions of - Where did we come from? (and why are we here? - What is wrong with the world? - How can we fix it?

2. We are trying to persuade and defend others of our beliefs. We do this by asking questions, showing how they borrow their worldview ultimately from the Bible, by reason, and by evidence.

Last week, we looked at 1 Peter 3:15–16 “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.”

This week, lets start off by looking at Hebrews 11:1-3

Hebrews 11:1–3 ESV

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

This is giving us the definition of faith. It is the assurance or another way to say this, it is the trust of things that is hoped for and the proof of things that we cannot see. It is the same trust that the people of the Old Covenant had. They heard the promises of God and trusted them. They trusted there would one day be a messiah. That was there hope. Our hope is the same. In the messiah that came and will come again. We have faith, or trust that the entirety of the universe was made because of the word’s that God has spoken.

Just think for a second about the power behind the words that are able to speak everything out of nothing. All by the Word of God. It also just so happens that we have not the spoken Word of God, but the written word that he has transcribed through a myriad of different authors so that we might believe and trust and have hope in Him.

The words that we have written before us have power because they have come from God. The same God by whose word all creation was spoken into existence.

So let’s take a look at questions people have about God and the Bible and how we can answer those questions and have trust in the words that we read.

Question 1: How is the Bible Unique?

Unified Story

66 Books

Written by over 40 authors

Written over a period of 800-1500 years

The story from start to finish is woven together and lacks contradictions.

Preservation

Despite many efforts throughout the centuries to destroy christianity and the Bible, it has been preserved and passed down through the generations.

Prophecies

27% of the Bible is prophecy

It contains approximately 1817 prophecies.

Most of these have already been filled.

Historical Accuracy

As we will see a few questions down, the historicity of the bible is reliable and accurate.

Most other religions have no claims of the historical accuracy of the bible from the beginning of time.

Authorship

Bible was written by a wide variety of people, many of whom you would not expect.

kings, fisherman, doctors, military leaders, a tax collector, the pharisee of pharisees.

Message

The bible not only explains the history of God’s chosen people, but the message is consistent throughout:

God will redeem and save his people.

Influence

The bible has had more influence on people across the globe than any other book.

Translations

The bible is by far the most translated book in the world.

Insert Picture from Wycliffe Global Alliance

Question 2: What key arguments are there for God’s existence?

The Cosmological Argument

States that the universe couldn’t have just popped into existence on its own—its existence had to have been caused by something else.

1. The universe had a beginning.

2. Anything that had a beginning must have been caused by something else.

3. Therefore, the universe was caused by something else, which we call God.

The Design Argument

Generally speaking, the design argument states that a designer (for example, God) must exist because the universe and living things show evidence of design by an intelligent agent.

In many ways, our Earth is like this cabin. It appears to have been uniquely designed to support human life—it’s as if the Earth knew we were coming. A planet, its planetary companions, its moon, its star, and its galaxy have dozens of parameters requiring precise values in order for physical life to exist. For example, if the Earth were tilted a little more or a little less, its surface temperatures would vary too much to support life. Similarly, the physical constants of nature (things like the strength of gravity) have extraordinarily precise values. If they were just a hair different, life couldn’t exist.

The Moral Argument

The moral argument states that:

1. objective moral standards exist outside of personal opinion

2. the best explanation for the existence of those standards is the existence of a moral law giver

This is just an introduction to these. We will get more into this and the arguments for and against these when we talk about science and christianity in week 4.

Question 3: How can a loving God send people to hell? Isn’t hell an unreasonable punishment for not believing in a specific set of truth claims? What happens to people who have never heard the Gospel?

God is Love

Many people believe that any form of punishment is at odds with a God who claims that He is love. This is probably the biggest question people have about God’s injustice.

There are two problems with this.

It ignores the problem of sin

It ignores the fact that God is both LOVING and JUST

Example 1: Us parenting our children.

Parents, when your child disobeys you, what happens?

So we, in our fallen nature, who love our children more than anything in the world, give punishments.

Why would we not expect God to do the same when His creation is disobedient

Then you will have people saying well hell is too harsh.

The creation doesn’t get to answer back to the creator what is fair or unfair. The one who made us establishes the rules and punishments.

The logic and fairness that we have is flawed.

There could not be a more just punishment for sin against an absolute Holy God.

Example 2: What about the innocent man in Africa who has never heard the gospel. Why should he go to hell?

The problem is that there is no innocent man in Africa.

We are sinners from the womb.

All have fallen short of God’s glory and are in need of a savior.

You then ask. Well Romans says that there is evidence for people to believe and nobody can deny the existence of God.

This is called natural revelation.

All around us we see evidence of God’s existence.

The evidence is clear in creation, but so is the blindness of man.

Romans 10:11–17 “For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”

This is why evangelism is important.

If anyone comes to the conclusion that there is a god, and they are saved by that, then the worst thing we can do would be to share the gospel with them.

Because then, if they disbelieve, they will go to hell. Why in the world would we tell them about Jesus if they already believed and were good?

This is nowhere in scripture. There is such an emphasis in sharing our faith with those who have never heard so that others might be saved that the apostles gave their lives for it and in turn have been followed by many who have been martyred for their belief.

If people could just come to their own conclusions from the natural world of how to be saved, there would be no need for the Great Commission.

Matthew 28:18–20 “And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.””

Question 4: Why would God need people to worship Him?

First, God needs nothing. He doesn’t need us to worship Him.

He does, however, want our worship.

Why does he want our worship?

God wants our recognition of who He is. Once we come to an understanding of our depravity and the goodness of His grace and and what He has done the only natural response is that we worship him for everything.

If God is who He says He is:

Creator

Sustainer

Life-Giver

The Only God

There are no others above Him

and so much more

He is not only worthy of worship, he deserves it.

They will then ask, doesn’t that make God egotistical and arrogant.

Would you want God to worship something else?

It doesn’t make sense.

He is the highest being that ever is and ever will be.

He is the only one that is worthy of that worship.

When man wants people’s worship and approval, this is sinful on our part.

Mainly because we are taking the place of God in our pride.

We are looking for satisfaction in other places besides God.

Arrogance is an inflated view of oneself. God is who he is. He cannot be arrogant because He or no one else can think more highly of Him than He actually is. He is infinitely more than our minds can comprehend.

Question 5: How do we know Jesus existed?

Evidence from Non-Christian Sources

Flavius Josephus - AD37-100

Most famous Jewish Historian

He didn’t believe Jesus was the Son of God

Therefore, he was not incentivized to promote Christian beliefs.

He mentions Jesus twice in his writings.

He wrote of Jesus’ brother James who was delivered up to be stoned for his beliefs.

Josephus shows us that even decades after Jesus’ ministry, his family is still clearly believing and willing to face persecution and death for those beliefs.

Cornelius Tacitus - AD 56- 117

First century Roman Senator

Wrote a history of the Roman Empire from AD 14-68

He writes of a “disease” named after Christ which started in Judea - which is where our Christian sources claim it started

He wrote of Jesus and described how Emperor Nero blamed Christians for Rome’s fire in AD 64.

Pliny the Younger - AD 61 - 112

Roman Official

Had hundreds of surviving letters to notable people in the Roman Empire

His most famous letter was asking advice from Emperor Trajan on how to deal the worship of Christians.

In Pliny and Tacitus’ writings, we see how fast Christianity is spreading and growing.

Thallus

One of the first Gentile writers to mention Jesus.

In AD 52, he wrote a natural explanation for the darkness that covered the land at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion.

Evidence from Christian Sources

New Testament

If the New Testament didn’t claim a religion or miracles, it would be one of the most sought after records of history that has ever existed.

Early Church Father’s Writings

Clement of Rome wrote the earliest Christian letter outside of the New Testament around AD 96

Ignatius of Antioch was a student of the apostle John and wrote a series of letters en route to his martyrdom (about AD 110

Polycarp of Smyrna was a Christian bishop who was probably the last surviving person to have known an apostle. He was martyred around AD 160 at about 86 years old

With the combined evidence from Christian and Non-Christian sources, the questions isn’t whether Jesus lived. All historians will attest to this fact. The question is whether he is who he says he is.

Question 6: What are the four minimal facts of the resurrection that are “so strongly attested historically that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones”?

If the resurrection isn’t true then Christianity is meaningless.

If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:

He is a false prophet

There’s no reason to follow any of his teachings.

If Jesus did rise from the dead:

This confirms his divinity

Makes everything he said of utmost importance.

Fact 1: Jesus died by crucifixion

We know crucifixion was a common form of execution by the Romans

It isn’t suspicious then, that the gospels say that Jesus died on the cross.

His crucifixion is referenced by Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian of Samosota, and the Jewish Talmud

Fact 2: Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them.

All the disciples claimed that the risen Jesus had appeared to them.

Scripture also attests that Jesus appeared to over 500 people, many of who were still living at the time it was written, as eyewitness testimony.

This would have been a psychological phenomenon that is impossible.

For one person to see a hallucination of a loved one that has passed is very common.

For 11 disciples plus the women to see the same thing and have the same story is a completely different scenario.

It is impossible for 10 to hallucinate the same thing, much less the 500 that the Bible claims saw Jesus.

If they were trying to hide something, they wouldn’t have attested to the multitude of eyewitness that saw it. They were giving proof.

Soon after Jesus appeared, they went from being fearful and in hiding to bold proclaimers of the Gospel, so much so that they died for their beliefs.

Fact 3: The church persecutor Saul was suddenly changed.

How you go from #1 persecutor to #1 Apostle is unheard of.

It wouldn’t have happened without divine intervention.

Fact 4: The skeptic, James, the Brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed.

Mark 3:21 “And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.””

Mark 6:3–4 “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.””

John 7:5 “For not even his brothers believed in him.”

1 Corinthians 15:7 “Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.”

He is now outspoken in Acts 15:12–21 “And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, “ ‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’ Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, …”

Galatians 1:19 “But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”

He was martyred for his beliefs.

Also, if we take the bible as a historical book, we can look at all of the Old Testament Prophecy that was fulfilled.

Jesus fulfilled over 300 individual prophecies that related to the Messiah.

A few prophecies could be a coincidence. Over 300 is a statement.

Question 7: Who selected what books are in the Bible and how were the books of the Bible selected?

We call this the Canon of Scripture

Canon simply means standard

Refers to 39 Old Testament and 27 New Testament Books

The 27 NT books were not canonized until AD 393

Early Acceptance During the Lives of the Apostles

The process of Scripture recognition started very early in the life of the church.

For example, in 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul quoted from Luke’s writings, calling them part of “the Scripture.”

2 Peter referenced Paul’s letters as Scripture (3:15-16).

Other verses such as Colossians 4:16 and Revelation 1:3 that the New Testament writings were already being collected and circulated amongst churches during the lives of the apostles.

Early Acceptance by the Apostolic Church Fathers

The apostolic church fathers (those who wrote in the first half of the second century) quoted extensively from and alluded to almost all of our New Testament books in their writings.

This is effectively a stamp of approval from those who personally had contact with the apostles or lived just after them and had received their teaching

While the apostolic church fathers didn’t compile any formal lists of books similar to a canon, their quotes and allusions provide strong evidence of early support for our New Testament books.

Key apostolic church fathers include Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna.

The Emergence of Heresies

The early church fathers likely didn’t compile formal lists of accepted books because there wasn’t yet a need.

But by the middle of the second century, two major heresies (teachings opposed to accepted doctrine from the apostles) emerged

This prompted the next generations of church fathers to define which writings were authoritative for Christians and which were not.

Church Fathers Who helped Canonize the scriptures:

Muratorian Fragment (c. AD 180): This anonymous document contains a list of books recognized as authoritative in the late second century. It lists 22 of the books we have today. It does not list Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, or 3 John. Aside from Marcion’s abridged canon, this is the earliest list of books we have.

Irenaeus (c. AD 180): Irenaeus was a bishop and the student of Polycarp, who knew the apostle John. He never made a list of accepted books, but appealed to the same writings as listed in the Muratorian fragment (with the exception that he included 1 Peter).

Tertullian (c. AD 207): Tertullian was an early Christian apologist (defender of the faith). He acknowledged the four Gospels we have today and noted they were written by apostles or associates of the apostles. He cited all the writings of our New Testament except 2 Peter, James, and 2 and 3 John. Tertullian was the first person we know of to actually use the term New Testament.

Origen (early third century): Origen was a scholar and theologian. He distinguished three categories of books in his writings: those widely acknowledged, those disputed by some, and those rejected as false doctrine. Widely acknowledged books included the four Gospels, Acts, all of Paul’s letters, 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation. Disputed books that are now in the New Testament included Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude (Origen was the earliest Christian writer to mention 2 Peter).

Athanasius (AD 367): Athanasius was the bishop of Alexandria and the most prominent theologian of the fourth century. In an Easter letter to his churches, he named the 27 books that were considered authoritative—the same 27 we recognize today.

Council of Hippo (AD 393): This council formally ratified the recognition of the 27 books in our New Testament canon. At that time, it was said that “nothing should be read in church under the name of the divine scriptures except the canonical writings.”

What was the Standard by which books were Canonized?

Their divine qualities (the essential characteristics that define God's nature

Reception by the churches

Connection to an apostle.

Most of the NT books were composed directly by one of the apostles (including Paul), and those that were not have close links to the testimony of the apostles themselves.

Why were some books questioned and still included?

20 of the 27 NT books were never in question

Hebrews: The author of Hebrews didn’t identify himself, leading to concerns over the book’s authority. Most, however, believed the author was Paul or one of his disciples, giving the book the apostolic authority necessary for acceptance.

James: The book of James raised questions because its emphasis on good works at first appeared to conflict with Paul’s emphasis on salvation by grace apart from works. After closer inspection, it was determined to be compatible with Paul’s teachings.

2 Peter: There’s a marked style difference between 1 and 2 Peter, leading some to question the authenticity of 2 Peter. It’s now believed that the difference in style can be accounted for by Peter’s use of a scribe and the difference in time, topic, and recipients.

2 and 3 John: These short books were questioned because of their anonymity and limited circulation. They were later accepted as likely works of the apostle John.

Jude: Jude was questioned by some because it quoted from a non-biblical source (the Book of Enoch in Jude 14). Nevertheless, it was recognized by the early church fathers and was eventually canonized.

Revelation: Concerns about Revelation weren’t raised until the fourth century, when a heretical group called the Montanists tied their doctrines to it. However, key church leaders came to its defense and its place in the canon was confirmed.

One thing that we do need to understand about the authority of scripture was quoted by F.F. Bruce.

One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect

Question 8: Why were some “books” we know about today (the Gospel of Thomas) left out of the Bible?

Books accepted by a few:

Not a lot

Most are writing by apostolic church fathers

Apocalypse of Peter

Gospel According to the Hebrews

Acts of Paul and Thecla

In summary, the writings accepted by a few were esteemed for their historical, moral, or literary value. They were accepted by a limited group of Christians for a limited time, but for various book-specific reasons, never gained widespread recognition as having the same authority as the writings that now comprise the New Testament.

Books Rejected by Everyone:

This includes books:

that were obvious forgeries

books that were knowingly written too late to be associated with the apostles

books that clearly did not conform to the teachings of the books already known to be authentic

We shouldn’t be concerned that our Bible is “missing” these books because we have no reason to believe they were connected with the apostles

These books are associated mainly with Gnosticism

Gnosticism wasn’t a single movement, but rather a worldview that “produced a myriad of viewpoints on the themes tied to its definition.”

Typically involved the ideas that only spirit and soul are good

That Jesus only appeared to be human

That special knowledge available to only a few was the means to salvation.

At least 30 writings are recognized as Gnostic.

Some of the most well-known are

Gospel of Thomas

Gospel of Philip

Gospel of Truth

Gospel of Mary

Gospel of the Egyptians.

Most scholars agree that all 27 books of the New Testament were written by the end of the first century—within 70 years of Jesus’ death. There are no Gnostic works that scholars date to the first century with the possible exception of the Gospel of Thomas. The Gnostic books we have were all written in the second century or later

How are those “gospels’ different from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

From How Can We Trust the Gospels?

“The four gospels list a wide range of geographical locations and places. In order to do this, you would have to be well acquainted with the area, have been told very specific details from someone who was there, or would have to have been there and traveled with Jesus themselves. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all pass this test.

Each of them have similarities of geographic locations as well as their differences which is something we would expect coming from four independent authors.

They were trying to present details with certainty.

In comparison:

The Gospel of Thomas mentions Judaea once, but names no other location. The Gospel of Judas names no locations. The Gospel of Philip names Jerusalem (four times), Nazara (once, a legitimate alternative spelling for Nazareth), and the Jordan (once). It must be appreciated how truly unimpressive this is. Jerusalem was the famous religious capital. No special knowledge was required to have heard of it. Jordan was the main river. Nazareth became famous because of Jesus, who was often called Jesus the Nazarene or Jesus of Nazareth. Though the Gospel of Philip is the least unimpressive of these Gospels, none of what is found in any of these Gospels gives a sense of familiarity with the places Jesus lived in or visited.

These later Gospels do, however, provide us with an excellent control sample. They show that sometimes people wrote about Jesus without close knowledge of what he did. The fact that the four Gospels, both as a group and individually, contrast with these other gospels illustrates the qualitative difference between these sources.”

Question 9: How do we know we can trust the Bible’s Authors?

We have to rely on the word of those who witnessed His life and resurrection. But how do we know we can trust them?

We put them to the detective test that police use to evaluate eyewitnesses.

Were they present?

According to the early witness of church fathers, the disciples Matthew and John were the authors of their own eyewitness accounts, Mark was the author of the disciple Peter’s eyewitness account, and Luke was a physician and historian who wrote an account based on the eyewitness testimony of the disciples and the apostle Paul (Paul was an eyewitness to the resurrection, but not to Jesus’ life).²

As supporting evidence for this authorship, there’s good reason to believe that the Gospels were written in the mid- to late-first century. (If the Gospels were written in the second century, as some have proposed, they couldn’t have been written by these four authors.)

The book of Acts, written by Luke, is a history of the Christian church after Jesus’ ascension. There are several relevant and important historical events, however, that Acts doesn’t mention: the destruction of the Jewish temple in AD 70 and the deaths of the apostles Peter (AD 65), Paul (AD 64), and James (AD 62). This strongly suggests Acts was written before these events happened (that is, by AD 62).

Luke wrote his Gospel before he wrote Acts, so the book of Luke can be dated even earlier (in Acts 1:1-2, Luke referenced his “first account”.

The early church unanimously said that Matthew was the first Gospel written. Many scholars today believe Mark was the first. In either case, that means at least one of these books was written even earlier than Luke (before AD 62).

Were they Corroborated? Do the Gospel accounts support each other?

Skeptics often say no. Much has been made of the differences between the Gospels, but corroboration doesn’t mean eyewitnesses must provide identical details. To the contrary, Det. Wallace explains, “True, reliable eyewitness accounts are never completely parallel and identical. Instead, they are different pieces of the same puzzle, unintentionally supporting and complementing each other to provide all the details related to what really happened.

Were they Accurate?

None of the original texts have survived. I think that was by design so that they were not worshipped.

So we have what we do from something called Textual criticism. That is the study of the copies of any written document whose original is unavailable, for the purpose of determining what the original said.

A textual variant is any place amongst manuscripts where there is a variation in wording.

The best estimate of textual variants in New Testament manuscripts is between 300,000 and 400,000.

There are 140,000 words in the New Testament, so that means there are, on average, 2 to 3 variants for every word.

However, we have so many variants because we have so many manuscripts.

More than 5800 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and 5000 other ancient translations such as Aramaic, Coptic, etc.

In comparison, the Iliad has the second most manuscript copies with 643.

New Testament variants fall into four categories:

1. Spelling differences: The vast majority of all textual variants in the New Testament are simply spelling differences. A modern-day example would be spelling the word color colour. Such differences in no way affect the meaning of the text.

2. Minor differences that don’t affect translation: These variants involve different words (not just different spellings of the same word), but they don’t change the meaning of the text once translated. For example, the sentence “Jesus loves John” can be expressed at least 16 different ways in Greek, but would be translated the same in English. Again, no meaning is affected by this type of variant.

3. Differences that affect the meaning of the text but aren’t viable: The first two categories of variants don’t affect the meaning of the text at all. Variants in this category do affect the meaning of the text, but there’s little reason to think they might actually misrepresent what the original text said

4. Differences that affect the meaning of the text and are viable: For all intents and purposes, this is the only category that Christians should be concerned about. These variants affect the meaning of the text and there’s reason to consider them viable candidates for the original wording. Less than one percent of all textual variants belong to this group.

99% of the variants that we have are irrelevant.

Were they Biased?

There is some general assumption that there are really just three motives that drive dishonesty: financial greed, sexual or relational desire, or the pursuit of power

The disciples had no reason to lie or to be dishonest about what they saw. They gave up their lives for it.

So the authors are trustworthy. Could it not have been copied or told wrong?

It has been said the passing down of the scriptures was like a game of telephone.

This game is optimized for deceit and confusion. You have to whisper and you can only say it one time.

The spreading and preaching of the gospel would not be like that in any way.

The Old Testament was well preserved and was read on the Sabbath in the Synagogue. Everyone would not have had a copy. So they would have committed scripture to memory.

THIS WAS DONE FOR CENTURIES

The odds of the New Testament writers having a copy of the OT in front of them as they were is very improbable.

All of the cross references that are listed are probably taken from their memorizations of the OT.

There are over 63,000 cross references across the bible.

Depending on your source, the NT quotes the OT approximately 855 times.

These men had a solid understanding of the OT and the prophecies that Christ fulfilled.

So to say that these men could have been misheard and misquoted is valid, but they would have cleared it up and answered questions without a doubt.

It’s not a game of telephone that was kept secret and whispered. It was a proclamation for all those who were near to hear and discuss.

Another thing that Christians and Non-Christian sources agree on is how fast Christianity actually spread.

These letters were being copied and spread rapidly. To have to correct something or change something would have required a significant task to go to multiple different places that were far apart to change it in every location.

Once the letter was sent and recorded and copied, that was that. There was no going back and changing it or altering it.

I also believe this is a valid claim because of the extent to which Paul had to correct some of the churches he wrote letters to.

If I were some of the churches Paul wrote letters to, I wouldn’t have wanted those letters to be circulated to show how bad I was messing up. I wouldn’t want my sin on display for the world to see.

And yet, we still have that account. Why?

Because the church was faithful to copy and preserve it by the work and power of the Holy Spirit that could not be taken away by the power or schemes of man.

What about contradictions?

People say all that time that the bible is full of contradictions.

On the surface, it can be seen that way, but all things that seem to be contradictions can be explained by the context.

These contradictions are put forth from people who want to prove the bible to be invalid and have not read the entirety of the passage or what was meant by the original author.

Question 10: Why don’t miracles happen as frequently today as they did in the Bible?

There were really only three times periods in which miracles were done in the bible:

The time of Moses and the Exodus: God used many miracles to deliver the Israelites from Egypt and bring them to the Promised Land, such as the plagues, the parting of the Red Sea, the provision of manna in the wilderness, bitter water made sweet, and the collapse of Jericho’s walls.

The time of the prophets Elijah and Elisha: After Israel split into two kingdoms, the northern kingdom quickly strayed from God. As a warning, God raised up the prophet Elijah, who performed many miracles to demonstrate God’s power and presence. Similar miracles accompanied Elisha who was Elijah’s successor.

The time of Jesus and the early church: Miraculous activity greatly intensified when Jesus was on Earth. Jesus’ miracles demonstrated control over nature, the ability to heal, and the ability to raise the dead.

Key Point: Biblical miracles primarily occurred when God would have needed to authenticate His messengers and their message at key times in history.

Question 11: How does archaeology come into play with the bible?

The role of Archaeology is:

1. To supply cultural, epigraphic, and artifactual materials that provide the background for accurately interpreting the Bible.

2. To anchor the events of the biblical text in the history and geography of the times.

3. To build confidence in the revelation of God where the truths of Scripture impinge on historical events.

In case after case, archaeology eventually catches up with the biblical account, and archaeology and the Bible come into agreement

Christians should understand that we cannot prove that the Bible is true scientifically. No amount of archaeology will ever “prove” the Bible to skeptics.

However, as things continue to get discovered and unearthed, it reveals more and more of the Biblical account.

10 Examples that have helped the case for the Bible:

Rosetta Stone

Dead Sea Scrolls

Tel Dan Inscription

Ketef Hinnom Scrolls

Moabite Stone

Lachish Letters

Epic of Gilgamesh

Hezekiah’s Tunnel

Crucified Man at Givat Hamivtar

Ugaritic Texts

Although there is a lot of proofs for the bible and it’s validity, no matter how true we can prove that it is, the truths won’t sink in until it is read. So I leave you with a quote from Tim Keller.

Yet I think that rather than trying to reproduce it, I will simply urge people to read the New Testament accounts of Jesus for themselves and engage with him directly. I do that because I do not think he is merely a religious figure but rather a living power, and my sincerest hope is that seekers will encounter him for themselves.