Ban the internet
Out of context: Reply #126
- Started
- Last post
- 174 Responses
- discipler0
Tick, (I'm going to say something I've said here a million times, so forgive) volumes of history which you accept as fact are compiled from 7 - 10 manuscript copies and are riddled with textual variances of the worst kind. Yet skeptics don't call these into question or cast them under the same scrutiny as the Bible.
In contrast, the New Testament which, incidentally, was originally written in the Greek language between 50 and 100 A.D. There are presently some 5,000 Greek manuscripts in existence, with as many as 25,000 more copies. Just as amazing is the fact that the earliest manuscripts can be dated back as far as 120 A.D. This is tremendous when you consider that only seven of Plato’s manuscripts are in existence today — and there’s a 1,300-year gap which separates the earliest copy from the original writing. Equally amazing is another fact; and that is, that the New Testament has been virtually unaltered. This has been demonstrated by scholars who have compared the earliest written manuscripts with manuscripts written centuries later. And remember, the accounts in the New Testament were recorded directly by eyewitnesses, (or by those who were associated with them) and in fact had close contact with the events themselves.
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.