BIBLE
Out of context: Reply #111
- Started
- Last post
- 302 Responses
- discipler0
Kes, I'm not sure where that cut n' paste came from, but it's frightfully lacking. For one thing it makes the errant presupposition that there are contradictions and variances in the manuscript evidence. This is false. Those who claim otherwise have the burden of proof to deal with - provide examples. The only variances in the abundant manuscript evidence are in grammatical items like use, or lack of use of the definite article "the", etc... Nothing that impacts doctrine or teaching. Rather, the manuscripts compliment one another and attest to the astounding accuracy as a whole. Whoever penned your article there, is obviously not versed in Textual Criticism.
In fact, the more I personally read the Bible, the more I marvel at this awesome Book. How is it possible for forty different authors to write over a span of 1,600 years, on three continents, in three languages, on hundreds of subjects — yet, without contradiction — and with one central storyline, God’s redemption of mankind. Truly, it can be said without contradiction that the Bible must be divine, rather than human in origin.
With every turn of the archaeologist’s spade, we see further evidence of Scripture’s trustworthiness. Such renowned and historical scholars as William Albright and Sir Frederick Kenyon have clearly testified that the findings of archaeology have served to underscore the authenticity of the Bible.