Bible Accuracy

Description: A poet wrote: “To err is human.” This truth is forcefully illustrated when one examines the literary productions of mankind. Amazingly, however, the Bible is unblemished by the flaws that generally characterize man’s writings.

Robert Utley is one of today’s leading historians of Old West lore. His recent book, Lone Star Justice, chronicles the history of the Texas Rangers from 1823 to 1910. In the Preface to his book, Utley points out that many who have attempted to portray the activity of America’s frontier days have not been diligent in getting their background data accurate.

For example, in 1956 a Lone Ranger feature film was produced; it was based upon the old TV series of the same name. In the film, Clayton Moore, who played the role of the “Lone Ranger,” was wearing the typical Texas Ranger badge – a star within a wagon wheel. Utley points out, however, that this style badge was not designed until the 20th century. This item represented an anachronism (a chronologically misplaced error). It is rather inevitable that historians occasionally will slip in constructing their narratives, as careful as they try to be.

One of the truly amazing facts about Bible history is the phenomenal accuracy that characterizes the text. Take, for example, Luke’s two New Testament documents – Luke and Acts. These books combined constitute more than a quarter of the bulk of the New Testament. Within these narratives the author is very specific with reference to historical data including persons, places, and titles.

In the book of Acts, Luke mentions 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 Mediterranean islands. He also lists 95 people by name, 62 of which are not named elsewhere in the New Testament (Bruce Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, Content, p. 171). In addition, Luke is intimately familiar with the constantly-changing political conditions of the Roman world. References to Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, Quirinius, the Herods, Felix, and Festus are recorded. In not one of these citations is there a mistake.

Some early critics occasionally charged Luke with errors, a few of them even suggesting that he was quite careless. The discoveries of archaeology, however, have vindicated him in every instance.

Sir William Ramsey, who initially doubted Luke’s reliability, did many years of “on site” study of these matters; he eventually classified “the beloved physician” (Col. 4:14) as one of “the very greatest of historians” who ever lived (Luke the Physician, p. 222).

Noted scholar Philip Schaff once observed that the final two chapters of Acts have provided more information about the details of ancient sea navigation than any other document of antiquity (Theological Propaeduetic, pp. 132-133).

This “uncanny accuracy” puts the biblical record in a class of its own. Even the best historians cannot avoid that occasional “slip.” But the writers of Scripture, guided by the Spirit of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17), were protected from the inclusion of error into their works.

If their credibility is established in such seemingly trivial matters, surely it may be trusted in the great theological themes it develops.

What? That's it? Closing the case on the entire issue of biblical accuracy with superficial references to two books? In the book of Acts, Luke mentions 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 Mediterranean islands. He also lists 95 people by name, 62 of which are not named elsewhere in the New Testament (Bruce Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, Content, p. 171). In addition, Luke is intimately familiar with the constantly-changing political conditions of the Roman world. References to Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, Quirinius, the Herods, Felix, and Festus are recorded. In not one of these citations is there a mistake.
Some early critics occasionally charged Luke with errors, a few of them even suggesting that he was quite careless. The discoveries of archaeology, however, have vindicated him in every instance.

All well and good, but there is no archaeological evidence for rather more critical events such as loaves and fishes, parting of a sea, walking on water, etc....

Um.....ok. Great.

Well, that's one opinion, anyway. "The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea" is more comprehensive and informative by magnitudes.

One wonders why they were not protected from conspicuous ommission, if that's the case. Mark overlooked mentioning the Virgin Birth, an event one doesn't encounter every day.

If their credibility is established in such seemingly trivial matters, surely it may be trusted in the great theological themes it develops.

That's a faulty assumption. The topic of biblical accuracy is important and fascinating, but this treatment seems entirely to flighty.

There was no need for the Holy Spirit to rehash this issue, as He'd already inspired Matthew and Luke to detail exhaustively in their writings with with the virgin birth.

Since Mark is the earliest gospel, exactly how would the writings of Matthew and/or Luke be 'rehashes', since the subject had not yet come up in Mark? Not only is your assumption illogical, but it's just too easy a way out of the problem without really addressing it.

It's clear by your arguments that you've entered in with a faulty premise. "That being"--- that the Bible is NOT inspired of God, but entirely man made.

How, precisely, is that a faulty premise, and how did you arrive at the assumed conclusion that that accurately reflects my position?

I should rather wonder what sort of archeological evidence one would expect to find for an event like Jesus' walking on water. Such an event would have no physical record, save that of written material collected from oral accounts. The same goes for the feeding of the five thousand- one is not going to chance over a hillside and discover seven neatly preserved baskets filled with fish remains and a note attached explaining the significance.

Instead, one might think (a wild thought, I understand), that the best accounts would be from someone who either saw the event in question or spoke with those who had. In the obvious absence of physical evidence, personal evidence must suffice. But then, if one does not wish to believe, a hundred volumes of testimony will not suffice. He will determine that the Church conspired to concoct these things, that perhaps it was all a great religious halluciation brought about by frightening socioeconomic upheaval, or that (and this is the most insidious of all) some of it was true, but most of it was not, but rather wildly elaborated upon by (albiet well-meaning) men.

Granted, one may offer evidences that the New Testament's historical accounts were not made-up (another I might add is the Aramaic nature of Luke's Greek when recording a speech made by Peter or one of the other Aramaic-speaking Apostles; if he had been merely devising a speech to fit with his ideas, it would have been in much better, more polished Greek, and far more Pauline in nature, rather than the very Hebraic, somewhat "prmitive" nature of the real thing), one must still accept the miraculous on faith. It is not a blind faith, but is rather the sort of faith we have when reading a good historical account. Though in this case the historical account is guided by the Holy Spirit, both through the writer and through the witness the writer drew upon through the Church. If one cannot accept that, then Luke and Acts are simply documents worthy to be examined for historical details, and nothing more.

Since Mark is the earliest gospel, exactly how would the writings of Matthew and/or Luke be 'rehashes', since the subject had not yet come up in Mark?

Even the most liberal of scholars will place the date of the writing of Matthew at around A.D.61 (more likely A.D. 37). Even at the latest dating of Matthew, that put's it 2 to 5 years ahead of Mark, Which most scholars hold to have been penned between 63 to 66, but before the desolation. Luke, being penned around A.D. 63, still predates the inspired gospel of Mark.

That being said, it really doesn't matter much how you date those writings. The covenant in incomplete with out each accompanying book.

I Cor 13:8-11

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Perfection (telios), completion came when the Revelation (which followed the 4 gospels, Acts and 21 other epistles) was circulated among the churches.

How, precisely, is that a faulty premise, and how did you arrive at the assumed conclusion that that accurately reflects my position?

Very simply, one could deduce that you doubt the inspiration of Mark's words, by squarely placing blame on his shoulders for neglectiung to detail the virgin birth. How could one avoid that conclusion? That would seem to be a human inadequacy and one that would lack divinity.

Even the most liberal of scholars will place the date of the writing of Matthew at around A.D.61 (more likely A.D. 37).

That is an opinion, not a generally accepted fact, and I understand that also holds true for Mark itself. Short of going into a detailed stylistic analysis to argue certain points, the liberal or conservative nature of any particular scholar doesn't seem to have any bearing on this matter.

Even at the latest dating of Matthew, that put's it 2 to 5 years ahead of Mark, Which most scholars hold to have been penned between 63 to 66, but before the desolation. Luke, being penned around A.D. 63, still predates the inspired gospel of Mark.

Again, you are asserting the positions of some historians, but not a universally recognized fact. Regardless, this is bringing us further from the original point.

That being said, it really doesn't matter much how you date those writings. The covenant in incomplete with out each accompanying book.

That's an entirely different topic.

I Cor 13:8-11 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Perfection (telios), completion came when the Revelation (which followed the 4 gospels, Acts and 21 other epistles) was circulated among the churches.

It seems we differ in opinion regarding a number of different areas.

How, precisely, is that a faulty premise, and how did you arrive at the assumed conclusion that that accurately reflects my position?

Very simply, one could deduce that you doubt the inspiration of Mark's words, by squarely placing blame on his shoulders for neglectiung to detail the virgin birth.

Yes, and it would be a faulty deduction. I made the observation that he left out an extraordinary, miraculous event that is glaring in its absence, thus calling into question, given the assertion that the bible is amazingly, if not completely, accurate, just how that could have happened.

How could one avoid that conclusion? That would seem to be a human inadequacy and one that would lack divinity.

One could easily avoid that conclusion by not assuming.

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Note: this topic is from January 23, 2003. Blast from the Past. Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
·Dogpile · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.