External evidence is the 3rd test to prove the reliability of the Bible - or any writing. When the Bible is compared to archaeology and reliable historical documents, it passes the test with flying colors! The external evidence must agree with the internal evidence found in the document being tested. With the Bible, it does.
Josh quoted Gottschalk as saying that, "Conformity or agreement with other known historical or scientific facts is often the decisive test of evidence, whether of one or of more witnesses."
Two friends of the apostle John confirm the internal evidence of his writings. John, himself, is quoted by Papias, bishop of Hieropolis, as confirming Mark's Gospel as being an accurate compilation of the apostle Peter's teaching; "...for he paid attention to this one thing, not to omit anything that he had heard, not to include any false statement among them."
Josh wrote, "Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons" (and student of Polycarp, a disciple of St. John) "wrote: Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews (i.e. Jews) in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the Church there....Mark...handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John...himself, produced his Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia."
Again, Josh quoted Joseph Free, an archaeologist, who wrote, "Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which having been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts." Remember that Sir William Ramsay was convinced that the Book of Acts was true and very accurate when he, in doubt, studied the facts of archaeology.
Josh quoted 2 more historians who point out the great accuracy of Luke's books. Then he mentioned his own unbelief and, then, acceptance of the Bible as factual. Josh wrote, "After personally trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the Scriptures, I have come to the conclusion that they are historically trustworthy. If a person discards the Bible as unreliable in this sense, then he or she must discard almost all the literature of antiquity. One problem I constantly face is the desire on the part of many to apply one standard or test to secular literature and another to the Bible. We need to apply the same test, whether the literature under investigation is secular or religious. Having done this, I believe we can say, 'The Bible is trustworthy and historically reliable in its witness about Jesus.'"
Josh, then quoted Dr. Clark H. Pinnock, professor of systematic theology at Regent College, who stated: "There exists no document from the ancient world witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies, and offering so superb an array of historical data on which an intelligent decision may be made. An honest (person) cannot dismiss a source of this kind. Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational (i.e., antisupernatural) bias."
In conclusion, the only way to continue as a nonbeliever in the accuracy of the Bible is to refuse to examine or believe the evidence. I believe that would prove that one is simply prejudiced against the Bible and refuses to believe the facts.
Sincerely,
Rick
Josh quoted Gottschalk as saying that, "Conformity or agreement with other known historical or scientific facts is often the decisive test of evidence, whether of one or of more witnesses."
Two friends of the apostle John confirm the internal evidence of his writings. John, himself, is quoted by Papias, bishop of Hieropolis, as confirming Mark's Gospel as being an accurate compilation of the apostle Peter's teaching; "...for he paid attention to this one thing, not to omit anything that he had heard, not to include any false statement among them."
Josh wrote, "Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons" (and student of Polycarp, a disciple of St. John) "wrote: Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews (i.e. Jews) in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the Church there....Mark...handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John...himself, produced his Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia."
Again, Josh quoted Joseph Free, an archaeologist, who wrote, "Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which having been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts." Remember that Sir William Ramsay was convinced that the Book of Acts was true and very accurate when he, in doubt, studied the facts of archaeology.
Josh quoted 2 more historians who point out the great accuracy of Luke's books. Then he mentioned his own unbelief and, then, acceptance of the Bible as factual. Josh wrote, "After personally trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the Scriptures, I have come to the conclusion that they are historically trustworthy. If a person discards the Bible as unreliable in this sense, then he or she must discard almost all the literature of antiquity. One problem I constantly face is the desire on the part of many to apply one standard or test to secular literature and another to the Bible. We need to apply the same test, whether the literature under investigation is secular or religious. Having done this, I believe we can say, 'The Bible is trustworthy and historically reliable in its witness about Jesus.'"
Josh, then quoted Dr. Clark H. Pinnock, professor of systematic theology at Regent College, who stated: "There exists no document from the ancient world witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies, and offering so superb an array of historical data on which an intelligent decision may be made. An honest (person) cannot dismiss a source of this kind. Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational (i.e., antisupernatural) bias."
In conclusion, the only way to continue as a nonbeliever in the accuracy of the Bible is to refuse to examine or believe the evidence. I believe that would prove that one is simply prejudiced against the Bible and refuses to believe the facts.
Sincerely,
Rick
0 comments:
Post a Comment