Scriptures Only?
Do We Have It Right?
This article is very much summarized. to fully appreciate this topic I highly recommend "The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict" written by Josh McDowell
I believe with all my heart that The Bible, is the Word of God, and
there is nothing else out there, needed to instruct us in our life's and
show us the way of Salvation.
Concerning the books of the Bible that we have today, I firmly believe
what we have is accurate and correct. Even the writers of the New
Testament quoted many times from our current Old Testament, and
not once from what we call the apocrypha
Before I begin my long ramble though, I thought I'd share some
interesting points:
The Bible was written over a 1,500 year period
Written by 40 authors
United Bible Society claims the Bible has been translated in full or in
part into 2,200 languages
The Jews had their own group of people, people who made a career
out of checking the accuracy of each manuscript, right down to
counting letters and syllables to insure they were all in the right
place. No other writings such as Plato, Aristotle or Cicero was given
such close watch and care. Even Shakespeare texts that are only
just a bit over 200 years old are more corrupt then the New
Testament texts that are now over 18 centuries old
------------------
Some verses from the Bible why the Bible is the only reference to
use and why we should be dependant on it is:
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2Ti 4: 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season;
reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine;
but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers,
having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be
turned unto fables.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness:
Even the New Testament writers used nothing else but scripture to
support views and thoughts.
---------------------
But why the books we have today? Why do we claim the Protestant
Bible to be the correct collection of the word of God? Why is it the
canon? (3rd century church father Origen used the word "canon" to
me the "rule of faith")
It was not men that picked and chose what should be used, it could
be worded like one author: "A book is not the Word of God because it
is accepted by the people of God. Rather it was accepted by the
people of God because it is the Word of God."
-----------------
Is there words in the N.T. that can help support the books of the O.T.
we have today? Other then the words of the men used by God, we
have words straight from God's mouth, while on earth:
Lu.11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which
perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It
shall be required of this generation.
This was one way of Christ confirming what they had was correct. No
one He was speaking to spoke up and went "hey what do you mean,
we have this book too...." In the Hebrew Old Testament, they have
their "bible" set in chronological order. The first book being GENESIS,
the last book being CHRONICLES which makes His statement in Luke
11, make sense.
Christ also supported the divisions of the Old Testament the Jews
had (outside of the Bible this was also supported by Philo and
Josephus)
The three divisions were the LAW, PROPHETS and WRITINGS (or
psalms)
Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I
spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be
fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets,
and in the psalms, concerning me.
Jewish history believes that the canon we have today of the Old
Testament was put together around the 4th century, but no later then
150 b.c. due to the fact that the Jews were quoted to say at this time:
"The voice of God had ceased to speak directly"
Some reasons why other books are not included in the canon that
you may be thinking of are these (according to Unger's Bible
Dictionary:
1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and
anachronisms
2. They teach doctrines that are false and foster practises that are at
variances with inspired scripture.
3. They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of subject
matter and styling out of keeping with the inspired scripture.
4. They lack the distinctive elements that give genuine scripture its
divine character, such as prophetic power and poetic and religious
feeling.
OUTSIDE EVIDENCE to support the canon is the simple fact that in all
the quotes of Philo and Josephus they did not mention or quote the
apocrypha
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
NEW TESTAMENT:
Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament -- 5,686
Latin Vulgate -- 10,000
9,300 (at least) earlier manuscripts
TOTAL: more then 25,000 manuscripts of N.T. in existence
another writer Homer in Homer's Iliad is 2nd with a mere 643
manuscripts
Other then the fact that the writers of the New Testament backed each
other up and supported each other there was evidence from outside
sources as well of the authenticity of the New Testament and this
new thing people were calling Christianity
Papias, bishop of Heirapolis (A.D. 130)
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (A.D. 180) -- he could also say that the
scripture was built on such a firm ground that even heretics were
trying to use it to support their views.
But what about outside the Christian circle?
TACITUS -- He mentioned the torment of Christians by Nero also
mentioning a "mischievous superstition". He was most likely
referring to the resurrection. Something that many people tried to say
never happened.
SEUTONIUS -- His writings support Acts. 18:2. He could also write:
"people addicted to a novel and mischievous superstition"
JOSEPHUS -- a Jewish historian and in the line of the Pharisees
referenced to the Christ and also John the Baptist. Josephus even
confessed that Christ had to be more then just a mere man.
TALMUDIC WRITINGS from 70-200 -- In the Sanhedrin 43a writing it
supported Christ's existence.
As far as contradictions of the Bible go Dr. Archer a man who had
learned 30 languages most being Biblical languages could say
"There is a good and sufficient answer in Scripture itself to refute
every charge that has ever been leveled against it"
archeologically wise Nelson Glueck a Jewish Archaeologist could
say "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery
has ever contradicted a biblical reference"
Why choose the books of the N.T. we have today though? Why reject
all the others? The reasons for the rejections according to Geisler
and Nix are:
1. None of them enjoyed any more than a temporary or local
recognition.
2. Most of them never did have anything more then a semi-canonical
status, being appended to various manuscripts or mentioned in
tables of contents
3. No major canon or church council included them as inspired books
of the N.T.
4. The limited acceptance enjoyed by most of these books is
attributable to the fact that they attached themselves to references in
canonical books (ex. Laodiceans to Col. 4:16) because of their
alleged apostolic authorship (ex. Acts of Paul). Once these issues
were clarified, there remained little doubt that these books were not
canonical
2 Peter 1:16 ¶ For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
It is very safe to say today as the Jews could say in 150 b.c. The voice of God to man has ceased, we now have the living Word of God -- the scriptures to guide us.
(all information for this article was taken from "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict -- Josh McDowell)