The authenticity of the Bible

[UnityofTrinity]

Dear all Catholics, may the Lord be with you and bless you all the way.

I’m a Protestant and currently troubled by the question “Is the Bible authentic?” and “Why should I trust in the Bible more than other sacred texts?”, now when we encounter these questions, 9 out of 10 Protestants that I know will repeat the same argument as followed:
“The Bible is written by different authors span though 1500 years from different continents, the Bible is true because of its continuity, it’s fulfilled prophesies, the manuscripts of the Bile is 99.5% close to the Original…”, but there are something that erred in those arguments:
_ The Bible was written 1500 years through out different continents but they were all written by Jews, so therefore of course they will mostly be describe about the same God and a same set of prophesy.
_The Bible was also canonized by men of the same faith in different Councils, now imagine if the Pope and Billy Graham in a same room about to pick the books that gonna represent their faith and put it in one big book, of course they would have to pick the canons that are in the Bible right now and exclude all the books that they consider apocryphal(Except maybe the Pope will disagree with Billy on the subject of books like 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees…)
_Since the Bible was composed together by men, the nature of the Bible itself is therefore questionable. I believe that God does inspire some authors to write down His words, but that does not mean that all these books we’re now using in the Bible is all inspired. On regard of the continuity, and the fulfillment of Jesus Christ and the harmony of the Bible, we can clearly see how and why. If men indeed picked books and canonized them and call it the Word of God, then it’s unquestionable about how the Bible could flow so smoothly together.

This is a real question from a troublesome Christian, I believe in God and our Savior Jesus Christ, but when answer this question please consider me as though as if I’m an Atheist or a non-believer, consider that I don’t believe in such thing as the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Please help me seek the answer for this question and also to the non-believers out there is seeking for the truth.

Thank you.

 

[JohnDamian]

Sacred Scripture goes hand in hand with Sacred Tradition, the bible, as you rightly put it - was composed by men; and in the light that there are mild incongruencies in it; it can be said that it is not infallible; neither are men. However, just because we do not know every letter of the law; does not mean we cannot follow it to the best of our ability!

 

[Nicholas_II]

the bible is not infallible?

 

[JohnDamian]

the bible is not infallible?

Well, if the bible is infallible then Jesus Ministry lasted only one year (Luke) and also lasted at least three years (John).

It can’t be both can it?

 

[PJM]

=UnityofTrinity;6755379]Dear all Catholics, may the Lord be with you and bless you all the way.

I’m a Protestant and currently troubled by the question “Is the Bible authentic?” and “Why should I trust in the Bible more than other sacred texts?”, now when we encounter these questions, 9 out of 10 Protestants that I know will repeat the same argument as followed:
“The Bible is written by different authors span though 1500 years from different continents, the Bible is true because of its continuity, it’s fulfilled prophesies, the manuscripts of the Bile is 99.5% close to the Original…”, but there are something that erred in those arguments:

The Bible is [has to be 100% true] while not always being factual; or it is of no value.

The very fact that it has been in existence for more than 2,000 years attest to its value an verasity.

I disagree with the1,500 years of authorship. The number of is or no relevance at all. Why?

The Old Testament is largely historical and prophetical in nature. History is simply “history.” It is what it is. The OT has as it’s prime purpose to LEAD TO CHRIST in the NT; which it does quite well.

I’d be interested in your views of unfulfilled prophisies.

The New Testament in its entiretly was written in about 50 years! So the claim of 1500 yars of authorship seems highly suspect.

The purpose of the NT is to complete, fulfill and Perfect the OT, which it does. I would further caution you to use the Catholic Bible, the Orginial, and the Complete Bible.

The CC is THEE Bible Chuch, having collected and asembled the OT and the NT was completely authored by men known today to have been Catholics; even though the term, was not to come into use for another hundred years or so.

While one can point out things that are not “factual” …here are examples: **Matt.5: 29 “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.” Matt.6: 22-23 ** "The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light; but if your eye is not sound, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! " Matt.7: 3" Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? "

Except for “factual” issus; I chanllange you to sahre someting in the NT that is not true.

The Bible was written 1500 years through out different continents but they were all written by Jews, so therefore of course they will mostly be describe about the same God and a same set of prophesy.

***Of course it was written by Jews: Its Jewish History. It’s th Hewbrew people that God choose and made Covenants with. READ the book of Exodus. An certainly there were other gods: th sun god, moon god, rain god, the Bahls gods, the Greek gods ect. All PLURAL… one for every indidudal thing. BUT ONLY ONE TRUE GOD! The First cause, and the lasting effects and Final cause.

If you don’t accept this; your not a Christian; cannot be saved! Matt. 12:31-32***

The Bible was also canonized by men of the same faith in different Councils, now imagine if the Pope and Billy Graham in a same room about to pick the books that gonna represent their faith and put it in one big book, of course they would have to pick the canons that are in the Bible right now and exclude all the books that they consider apocryphal(Except maybe the Pope will disagree with Billy on the subject of books like 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees…)[/QOTE]

***I simply cannot see any commonsense or logic in this position.

FACTS: when the OT was collected; when the NT was writen and when the Canon of the Bible was set and approved by God THERE WAS ONLY ONE CHURCH, ONE FAITH IN EXISTENCE, THAT KNOWN TODAY AS TH CC. WHAT OTHER EXPETIATIONS WOULD YOU HAVE?*** Protestants did not come along until more that 1,000 years later:shrug:

Since the Bible was composed together by men, the nature of the Bible itself is therefore questionable. I believe that God does inspire some authors to write down His words, but that does not mean that all these books we’re now using in the Bible is all inspired. On regard of the continuity, and the fulfillment of Jesus Christ and the harmony of the Bible, we can clearly see how and why. If men indeed picked books and canonized them and call it the Word of God, then it’s unquestionable about how the Bible could flow so smoothly together.

The Bible is God’s Mission satement; His Instruction manual for the NEW Covenant; new faith He just introduced. So after 2,000 years and countless EXPERTTS, you deem yourself to know more an know better. WOW! I’m speechless

This is a real question from a troublesome Christian, I believe in God and our Savior Jesus Christ, but when answer this question please consider me as though as if I’m an Atheist or a non-believer, consider that I don’t believe in such thing as the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Please help me seek the answer for this question and also to the non-believers out there is seeking for the truth.

Faith is a gift of God. Along with faith comes Wisdom and understanding. God’s obligation begans nd ends bu obligating Himself to OFFER to everyone sufficient grace to know him, love Him and serve him. HELL IS ALOT BIGGER than heaven because so many choose not to take up there cross and fololw Chrsit;[Matt. 5:19] but take the slippery easy fun road to hell. ONLY GOD CAN AND ONLY GOD DOES CONVERSION OF HEARDENED HEARTS. It’s out of our paygrade.[Matt.7:13-17].

Friend, I truly hope for your salvation. are you aware that denying God’s Divine Word is identical to denying God Himself? Serious stuff

Love and prayers,

 

[Erich]

I also recommend the following:

Proving Inspiration
Scripture and Tradition

 

[simspt]

Dear all Catholics, may the Lord be with you and bless you all the way.

I’m a Protestant and currently troubled by the question “Is the Bible authentic?” and “Why should I trust in the Bible more than other sacred texts?”, now when we encounter these questions, 9 out of 10 Protestants that I know will repeat the same argument as followed:
“**The Bible is written by different authors span though 1500 years from different continents, the Bible is true because of its continuity, it’s fulfilled prophesies, the manuscripts of the Bile is 99.5% close to the Original…”, **but there are something that erred in those arguments:
_ The Bible was written 1500 years through out different continents but they were all written by Jews, so therefore of course they will mostly be describe about the same God and a same set of prophesy.
_The Bible was also canonized by men of the same faith in different Councils, now imagine if the Pope and Billy Graham in a same room about to pick the books that gonna represent their faith and put it in one big book, of course they would have to pick the canons that are in the Bible right now and exclude all the books that they consider apocryphal(Except maybe the Pope will disagree with Billy on the subject of books like 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees…)
_Since the Bible was composed together by men, the nature of the Bible itself is therefore questionable. I believe that God does inspire some authors to write down His words, but that does not mean that all these books we’re now using in the Bible is all inspired. On regard of the continuity, and the fulfillment of Jesus Christ and the harmony of the Bible, we can clearly see how and why. If men indeed picked books and canonized them and call it the Word of God, then it’s unquestionable about how the Bible could flow so smoothly together.

This is a real question from a troublesome Christian, I believe in God and our Savior Jesus Christ, but when answer this question please consider me as though as if I’m an Atheist or a non-believer, consider that I don’t believe in such thing as the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Please help me seek the answer for this question and also to the non-believers out there is seeking for the truth.

Thank you.

I agree with you that those common answers you mentioned r weak if not completely false. r u asking about whether or not we should trust the NT writings in relation to them corresponding to the historical Jesus or whether the NT writings are more reliable than others eg gnostics or both? At any rate, can we trust the church’s testimony because thats what the NT is plain and simple. Has the church through oral and written tradition given us an accurate testimony of the Apostles and Jesus. Who cares about manuscript evidence if what it conveys is false. An autograph could be discovered tomorrow but that wouldnt prove its actually depicting an event accurately. Prophecy evidence is conflicting. Archeology evidence is conflicting.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

I’m sorry for for the blurry question that I’m trying to ask, so therefore I’m gonna ask again to those who don’t understand my question:

The main point to the question is how can I trust the Bible when I know that it was hand picked and put together by men? There are actually more books out there than just 66 books in Protestant Bible and 73 books in Catholic and Orthodox Bible, books like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary Magdelene…

Since the Bible was handpicked and cannonized by men with the same faith, who looked for the same books to support their religion. Therefore why should I believe in the Bible that it was inspired by God?

 

[Eileen_T]

I’m sorry for for the blurry question that I’m trying to ask, so therefore I’m gonna ask again to those who don’t understand my question:

The main point to the question is how can I trust the Bible when I know that it was hand picked and put together by men? There are actually more books out there than just 66 books in Protestant Bible and 73 books in Catholic and Orthodox Bible, books like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary Magdelene…

Since the Bible was handpicked and cannonized by men with the same faith, who looked for the same books to support their religion. Therefore why should I believe in the Bible that it was inspired by God?

The Church came first and it is the Church that Jesus promised to be with always, “even unto the end of the earth”. It amazes me how many non-Catholic Christians call themselves Bible-believing Christians and insist on the Bible Alone, when it was the Councils, of the Catholic Church they reject, that formulated the very Book they revere.

This may help answer you questions:

Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church by The Right Rev. HENRY G. GRAHAM. catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

This book was written before he became a Catholic and, if I remember correctly, his research on the Bible led to his conversion.

 

[marymichael10]

I’m sorry for for the blurry question that I’m trying to ask, so therefore I’m gonna ask again to those who don’t understand my question:

The main point to the question is how can I trust the Bible when I know that it was hand picked and put together by men? There are actually more books out there than just 66 books in Protestant Bible and 73 books in Catholic and Orthodox Bible, books like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary Magdelene…

Since the Bible was handpicked and cannonized by men with the same faith, who looked for the same books to support their religion. Therefore why should I believe in the Bible that it was inspired by God?

These ‘men’ you speak about didn’t create Christianity. CHRIST HIMSELF created Christianity.
I can only answer a question like that with Jesus’ own words:
“Jesus asked His disciples, ‘Who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter said in reply, ‘You are the Messiah. The Son of the Living God.’ Jesus said to him in reply, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Heavenly Father. So now I call you Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.’”–Matthew 16:15-19

“The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name–He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.”–John 14:26

“And when He comes He will convict the world in regard to sin and righteousness and condemnation: sin, because they do not believe in Me; righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will no longer see Me; condemnation, because the ruler of this world has been condemned. I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when He comes, the Spirit of Truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will decare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.”–John 16:8-14

As to the apocryphal gospels…I’ve read them. They are un-ignorable discrepancies between each of their views of Jesus, and the view of Jesus from the true Gospels, and from the view held by Paul. Reading them, I found myself saying, ‘Wow. Someone just made up all this stuff,’ or ‘Wow. People heard about Jesus and just decided to write whatever they wanted about Him.’ It’s clear that these Gospels don’t reflect the full teaching of Jesus found in ours.

The Gospel of Thomas is the most widely accepted one…even it, though being apt in some parts, is unworthy of belief for me…Just too many discrepancies and too much ignorance. And no record of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Kind of strange. Blatently faked, rather, if you ask me.

I’d like to add that yes, men are fallible. But the Holy Ghost is not. Jesus didn’t intend many Churches and many interpretations. He intended *ONE *Church. History shows that this was the Catholic Church, as Acts of the Apostles shows that when one apostle died, another was *elected *in his place. It was the Catholic Church to teach the Dogma of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, and Original Sin. This is the Church that has survived for 2,000 years, and while men are fallible, the “Spirit of Truth” is not. It’s this “Spirit of Truth” Jesus promised that has led the Church “to the Truth” for the past 2,000 years.

 

[diggerdomer]

the bible is not infallible?

Of course not, according to Catholic understanding.

 

[po18guy]

Much of the New Testament, particularly Luke and Acts, was produced by the Apostolic Tradition - that is, the oral teaching of the Apostles, via the leading of the Holy Spirit as promised by our Lord. As an example, Luke was not an eyewitness to the events which he wrote down. He did not claim to have received any direct revelation. Thus, Luke relied on interviews with those who were witnesses in the compilation of his Gospel and the book of Acts.

As to the “authenticity” of scripture, God is the Author, and He chose certain men to write for Him. There were many writings which claimed to be “authentic”, but which were tested by the Church and found wanting in one respect or another. Many were rejected as they had content which did not agree with the totality of revealed truth. Those writings which did achieve approval for inclusion in the canon of scripture were argued over and tested, just as Saint Paul advised all Christians to do. The “good” was retained and the rest was rejected. This was done under the authority which our Lord bestowed upon His Church.

The bible is authentic because it backs up the teaching and actions of the Church which produced it. The Church was first founded by Christ, and then went on to write scripture some decades later. So, those who question the authenticity of scripture are, perhaps without knowing it, questioning the authenticity of Jesus Himself. Christ founded a Church which then wrote the New Testament and combined it with tested pre-Christian scriptures into what we now call the bible. Many of those involved in the teaching and writing of scripture were martyred for their beliefs. No one is willing to die for a lie.

Consider also: the “table of contents” of the bible did not fall from heaven. It was determined by Bishops of the Catholic Church who were overseen by the Pope, who declared the collection of scripture to be inspired and sealed it forever. To mistrust scripture is to mistrust our Lord.

 

[diggerdomer]

Much of the New Testament, particularly Luke and Acts, was produced by the Apostolic Tradition -

Not just “much.” All of the New Testament was produced by Apostolic Tradition.

 

[po18guy]

I’m sorry for for the blurry question that I’m trying to ask, so therefore I’m gonna ask again to those who don’t understand my question:

The main point to the question is how can I trust the Bible when I know that it was hand picked and put together by men? There are actually more books out there than just 66 books in Protestant Bible and 73 books in Catholic and Orthodox Bible, books like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary Magdelene…

Since the Bible was handpicked and cannonized by men with the same faith, who looked for the same books to support their religion. Therefore why should I believe in the Bible that it was inspired by God?

Simply put, we either have a bible or we do not. Like Heaven or hell, it is our choice. Tens of thousands of Christians have chosen death rather than deny their faith - which includes scripture. No one chooses to die for a lie.

The books you mention were written as much as 200 years after the time of Christ. They are clearly fraudulent. Now, there is some degree of truth in each of them, but that is the devil’s trick. They were examined in their totality and soundly rejected. They could not have been written by those whose names they carry - all were dead decades before the pages were written.

Oh, the bible is not infallible, as that is a human trait. The bible is inerrant, which is different. But, the bible, which seems to contradict itself in places, needs proper, authoritative interpretation. Only the Church has the authority to interpret scripture, as Jesus gave that authority to His Church. When individuals interpret scripture, they can be lead astray by passing spirits. Thus, Peter condemned private interpretation in 2 Peter 1:20.

Please tell just who or what is causing you to doubt.

 

[po18guy]

Not just “much.” All of the New Testament was produced by Apostolic Tradition.

Again, it’s arguable that the eyewitnesses relied on tradition, as tradition (paradosis) is the “handing on” of that which was handed on to them by those before them. Divine revelation is different, don’t you agree?

 

[po18guy]

Of course not, according to Catholic understanding.

Only a person can be infallible. Scripture is inerrant, but requires authoritative interpretation before it is considered so.

 

[diggerdomer]

Again, it’s arguable that the eyewitnesses relied on tradition, as tradition (paradosis) is the “handing on” of that which was handed on to them by those before them. Divine revelation is different, don’t you agree?

IT’s not arguable that eyewitnesses relied on Tradition. Nothing in the New Testament differs from Tradition.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

If the Bible is fallible and put together by men who picked these specific books in hundreds of different books because they flow with their faith, then why should I believe in the Bible more than the Qu’ran or the Canon Pali?

 

[RedClay]

UnityofTrinity,

First, the reason someone might say that the Bible is not infallible, is not that they think that it is fallible, but rather because the proper use of the word ‘infallible’ is assigned to people, not objects. So it is proper to say that the Bible is inerrant. In other words, a human being can be infallible, but the Bible is inerrant (without error).

Your question regarding the authenticity of the Bible can be looked at in various ways. And all the ways converge to truth. Here’s one way I will offer you for consideration.

In the first place, particularly regarding the New Testament, yes, men in the early Church gathered from many different manuscipts and determined that 27 were Inspired and therefore inerrant. They also determined the canon, the order. But you should understand that this was the action of the Catholic Church. Finally, at the end of the fourth century, Pope Damasus at the Council of Rome, promulgated the Bible – proclaimed it to the whole world.

The Bible is a product of the Catholic Church.

As a Catholic, I believe that Jesus Christ started a Church, and today that Church subsists in the Catholic Church. The of course is another discussion, but I will say that the Catholic Church has to be exactly what it says.

So, because I believe that Jesus Christ started the Catholic Church, then I believe that when this Church says that the Bible is Inspired, I believe it – with certainty.

Perhaps in your search for truth, you will come to know the Catholic Church – it is so profound, and I hope you come to understand it.

 

[PPio10]

Dear UnityofTrinity,
Important: Christian belief is that God is omnipotent which means that He can do all that He wills.

–We see in Matt 16:19 and 18:18 that Jesus gives St. Peter, and then the Apostles as a whole, the authority to “bind and lose consistent with Heaven”–this refers to teaching authority and Jews in that day would have understood this.
–We see in Acts chapter 1 (Matthias is chosen to succeed Judas) that the Apostles’ offices of authority were permanent and successors were to be chosen.
–The successors of the Apostles used their authority to bind and lose consistent with Heaven to infallibly proclaim which writings were inspired by God and contained no error (the Canon). (Do a keyword search of the Canon at Catholic.com and it will go much more in depth.)

So, the authenticity and inerrancy of the Bible all comes down to Jesus’ question to St. Peter in Matt chapt. 16: “Who do you say that I am?”
–If He is truly God the Son and God can do all that He wills, then He clearly gave the Apostles and their successors the authority to proclaim truths such as which writings were inspired by God.
–Likewise, if God willed it, God the Holy Spirit inspired writers to write without error.

*Notes: --Our translations and copyings of the inspired writings that have taken place after they were written are obviously subject to human error.
–Peter received special authority: the Keys to the Kingdom. This makes him and the successors of the keys the representatives of the King–Jesus Christ. This is foreshadowed in Isaiah 22:22 with the keys of King David and the keys are also mentioned in Rev. 3:7.
–Examples of this representative authority: Peter proclaims Matthias as Judas’ successor in Acts chpt. 1, Peter proclaims the verdict of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts chpt. 4, the disciple defers and waits for Peter to be the first one to enter Jesus’ tomb, and Peter is mentioned first when the Apostles are listed.

UnityofTrinity, if God is all-knowing, which we believe He is, then it would make sense for Him to do something as basic (yet necessary) as instituting representatives that would make the Shepherd’s will known to the flock. Fortunately He did this and if He had not, claiming any writing to be divinely inspired and without error would simply be a guess.

You are beginning to learn of the beauty of the teaching body that is known as the Magisterium!

United in Christ.