F
faithbound
Guest
A co-worker of mine strongly suggests that there is no other historical evidence or other non-religious books to back up the bible.
Can anyone help me out here?
Can anyone help me out here?
- Status
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
What do you mean by “back up”? The Bible is not just history its a collection of books, written at different times and different people, it is history, morals, poetry, prophecy, gospel, etc. There are lots of cites that still retain Biblical names, and stuff is uncovered all the time, those places really exist there is no need to back that up. The Bible somtimes is the only relyable source in excavations.
More info on your situation would help. Also you could also look online, there is a lot out there.
D
dano
Guest
There is plenty of “extra bibical” (historical) documentation of events from that era. Jewish Historian **Josephus (admittedly post-Christ) **is probably the most famous, and he was not Christian and therefore had no need to embellish the development of the Christian community/events. He was captured by the Romans during the taking of Jeruselem and allowed to survive to record the fall of the Temple and the Massada, etc.
The oldest copies of the NT writings are not originals, but copies which are almost as old as orginals…verified (dated) through scientific methods as from the proper time-frame.
No historians doubt that the documents we’re written as claimed and with the content as written. See if your friend can find anything from that Era trying to say that the content of the NT docs are fiction? Virtually no historian doubts a man name Jesus existed in 30 AD and that the recordings (NT writings)from then document what was reported/witnessed. That the books of the Bible were written, assembled and circulated (not by today’s standard’s - remember, no printing press, cost = 3 times annual salary) in first century is not in dispute.
Again ask your friend if he/she accepts the authenticity of the writings of the Greek Philosophers…written well before Christ was born…? If he/she doesn’t accept the spiritual nature of the Bible - he/she should accept the historical existence of such a book from that era, otherwise what history can be believed? Is there no history? Are we living in a MATRIX…???
Anyway, Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundalmentalism handles the authenticity of the Bible from a purely historical standpoint well.
Good luck,
Dano
The oldest copies of the NT writings are not originals, but copies which are almost as old as orginals…verified (dated) through scientific methods as from the proper time-frame.
No historians doubt that the documents we’re written as claimed and with the content as written. See if your friend can find anything from that Era trying to say that the content of the NT docs are fiction? Virtually no historian doubts a man name Jesus existed in 30 AD and that the recordings (NT writings)from then document what was reported/witnessed. That the books of the Bible were written, assembled and circulated (not by today’s standard’s - remember, no printing press, cost = 3 times annual salary) in first century is not in dispute.
Again ask your friend if he/she accepts the authenticity of the writings of the Greek Philosophers…written well before Christ was born…? If he/she doesn’t accept the spiritual nature of the Bible - he/she should accept the historical existence of such a book from that era, otherwise what history can be believed? Is there no history? Are we living in a MATRIX…???
Anyway, Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundalmentalism handles the authenticity of the Bible from a purely historical standpoint well.
Good luck,
Dano
F
faithbound
Guest
Much appreciated Dano and Catholic Dude your help was very helpful.
I
Ignatius
Guest
Do you mean to prove that it is the inspired word of God? How on earth would you prove that?
T
Tietjen
Guest
I’m sorry, I am not laughing at you but rather at your friend’s suggestion. Have her check out the writings of the Early Church Fathers. It’s comprised of, I believe, 38 volumes. If she wants archeological evidence have her check out bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/indexBAR.html. The organization claims that it is a nonprofit, nondenominational, educational organization dedicated to the dissemination of information about archaeology in the Bible lands. Whether that is actually true or not remains to be seen. However, regardless of it’s slant (if there is one) the evidence discussed is nontheless worth looking at.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
He’s wrong,
look at all these letters from the ECF catholicfirst.com/churchfathersindex.cfm
J
JimG
Guest
There is far more evidence to support the historicity of the bible than there is to support the existence of, say, Caesar Augustus. The earliest manuscripts we have for the books of the bible are more numerous and reliable than the earliest copies we have of other ancient writings. And let’s not forget that the books of the bible constitute in themselves a primary historical source document.
- Status