EvC Forum: Bible inerrancy is well supported

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Bible inerrancy is well supported

kendemyer

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 1 of 61 (78285)
01-13-2004 7:50 PM

Does the Bible have excellent resources that support it?

ANSWERS TO BIBLE QUESTIONS PLUS BIBLE INERRANCY DISCUSSED

This webpage is devoted to supporting the doctrine of Bible inerrancy. First, I provide some resources for answering Bible questions and then I give evidence which supports the doctrine of Bible inerrancy:

ANSWERS TO BIBLE QUESTIONS. USER FRIENDLY RESOURCES.

Bible Query - Answers to Bible questions (look up by verse)

http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html (extremely well organized )

A Christian Thinktank (allows search by topic or keywords )

Christian Answers Network [Home] - Multilingual answers, reviews, ministry resources, and more! - ChristianAnswers.Net (general questions)

BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.: Rbc (general questions)

Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible (excellent free commentaries)

ADVANCED GOOGLE TIPS SO YOU CAN FIND BIBLE ANSWERS NOW!

Google (search engine)

http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en (advanced searches)

Refine web searches - Google Search Help (advanced Google help)

AWESOME BIBLE SITES I FOUND THROUGH Google

NOAH'S ARK:

Noah's ark seen through the eyes of a nautical engineer:

GoDaddy Security - Access Denied

Historical accounts of Noah's ark sitings:

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~arktracker/ark/Sightings.html

Noah's ark, objections answered

Noah’s Ark | Answers in Genesis

Noah's ark, insects not welcome:

ADSL, ADSL2+, Broadband plans, Internet, Telephone, VOIP, SIM | Internet Service | Adam Australia | Internet Service | Adam Australia

More answers regarding Noah's ark:

http://www.ldolphin.org/cisflood.html

DEFENSE OF CHRISTIANITY SITES

Page not found - Apologetics.com (comprehensive site, excellent essays)

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/historical.htm (historical apologetics)

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/philosophical.htm (philosophical apologetics [philosophy compatbile with Christianity])

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/liberalism.htm (contra-theological liberalism)

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/cults.htm (cults and other religions)

Home | CS Lewis (Bible prophecy)

Home | CS Lewis (Bible archeology)

http://www.myfortress.org (fairly comprehensive site)

Home | CS Lewis (creationism)

(I generally agree with most of the essays written at the above 2 Christian apologetic sites for the most part although two of the essays neglect to mention that the new city of Tyre is not built upon the old one although it is extremely close to it. Some of Pascal's writings are brilliant but I disagree with some points Pascal made. Also, the creator of the http://www.myfortress.org site made what I think could be a very small error. He gave a report of Voltaire's death which I know has conflicting testimony. On of the sites has pro Big bang theory proponents and I do not agree with the Big Bang theory. Other than these concerns I wholeheartedly endorse these sites).

WHERE THE CRITICS OF THE BIBLE OFTEN GO WRONG

http://www.tektonics.org/calcon.html

WHAT IS BIBLE INERRANCY (FREE OF ERROR)? SHORT ESSAYS.

Bible | Answers in Genesis

A COMMON OBJECTION OF BIBLE INERRANCY

http://tektonics.org/JPH_IHI.html

RECOMMENDED AUTHORS AND BOOKS

MacArthur Study Bible answers a lot of Bible inerrancy issues in its notes (I do not always agree with MacArthur's theology but he is a top notch scholar)

Dr. Gleason Archer has been called the "apostle of Bible inerrancy". Dr. Geisler has also written some excellent works on this subject. Here is a link to some books by these gentleman:

http://www.helpmewithbiblestudy.org/20s/t_difficulties.htm

Also, although it is out of print and you would need to do a search through used book dealers I think the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia is a superb reference source that answers Bible questions.

IMPORTANT REQUEST TO READERS

1. Please do not ask me to argue about Bible inerrrancy. If you have a Bible inerrancy question please use the Bible questions answered sites I gave above. I hate arguing. It raises my blood pressure and gives me knots in my stomach. I won't do it! LOL

2. Please do not ask me any Bible questions. I would love to answer all your Bible questions, however, I am self-employed right now my plate is currently full. I think the resources I gave you will enable you to find your own answers. In short, I did not give you a fish but taught you how to fish! God bless your efforts. You can get your Bible questions answered. I am speaking from experience.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Here is some information from something I previously wrote which I think you will find useful (one of the items is rather humorous):

The following information is based on something a Christian apologist wrote at the following Australian magazine called Investigator Magazine plus a Jewish site. 3: Belief and Action: Criteria for Responsible Decision « Living up to The Truth « Ohr Somayach (Jewish site. I am a Christian and not Jewish but I thought the essay was well done)

You raised the best question of all I thought. Is proving an inerrant Bible possible? That seems to be the $64,000 question doesn't it?

Here is a scenario:

You are in a cab. A doctor is in the cab next to you. Suddenly, you feel immense pain in your midsection. You tell the doctor where it hurts. The doctor proceeds then to ask you some questions. The doctor then says, "I think we need to rush to the hospital. I think you have an acute problem with your appendix. You ask the doctor: "Are you absolutely sure? Is it possible it is something else?" The doctor says, "Well it is possible I guess that it is something else, but I strongly recommend we rush to the hospital right now." You say, "Well, If you are not absolutely sure I am not going to the hospital. I am going to visit my girlfriend."

I would say the above illustration shows the difference between moral certainty and absolute certainty. I would argue that we can have great moral certainty regarding inerrancy based on our intellectual abilities. I also would say that in everyday life we constanty make decisions using moral certainty and not absolute certainty. I also know from experience and the experience of others that God can and does reveal Himself, His thoughts regarding Scripture, also He reveals what wants for us to those who diligently seek Him. Do all diligently seek Him? The Bible says indicates that few do seek God, but He is available.

So how can one attain this moral certainty regarding the great reliability of the Scriptures - namely Bible inerrancy - using the brain I believe God has given us? One way Christians try to pursuade others, and I would not recommend this, is to do the following: argue about the fossil record gaps using a lot of respected scientists and examples, quote other scientists and examples regarding the richness of the fossil record created by the over 100 million fossils recorded in natural museums, quote neo-darwinists and punctuated equilibrium scientists bickering among themselves over germaine matters, and lastly, quote a evolutionists saying in the Wall Street Journal on June 15, 1979 saying "the creationists tend to win the debates." I know this type of debate and have seen it and even particated in it myself in it myself. At best, I think it can only eliminate an objection to the Bible. Plus, I have seen the two sides go at it for days or weeks or months without much being accomplished. Also, I do not think it is going to persuade people of Bible inerrancy or Christianity. I know that many Christians try this method to show that Christianity and the Bible is valid and sometime it may even be very helpful but it is not going to create a revival. I do think that the discussion certainly has its place though and hence many this board's forums have a place (Here is something I created that indicatea that creationists have a strong case by the way: http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=180 )

Here is what I believe is a better way:

Since this is a science forum I will illustrate things in a scientific manner. Inductive logic, which science uses, is where we generalize from particular items to general conclusions.

Following this logic, if the Bible regularly turns out true regarding matters we can verify and its detractors in error in the long run, we can expect more of the same. In life, if a individual is regularly reliable we are more likely to trust him the next time.

See:

There are other examples as well in science. I am sure if you will do a study of Christian apologetics through a Christian bookstore or though the web resources I have given you will see more examples. Given my time constraints I have I cannot offer you more at this time (I said I cannot debate. Starting tommorow I am putting more hours in with my work plus there are other matters as well).

Now here is a very important question. What is the Bible's batting average in terms of being right in the long run on historical matters? I you look at the forward the a new Oxford Bible Commentary edited by John Barton and John Muddiman you will find that they take a "chastened historical criticism" approach. Is Barton or Muddiman a Bible inerrantist? No they are not. But I think it is fair to say that they are admitting that the Bible's critics have been proved historically wrong in many cases. If you do further research you will see this was accomplished though archeaology and other methods.

Here is something else I wrote on Bible inerrancy which might be of interest to some people:

Many skeptics, though not all, approach the whole debate between skeptics and Christians as if it were a "tabla rasa" debate that started just recently. I would submit there is a long pedigree of Bible statements being proved true and a long pedigree of skeptics assertions being overturned. I cited the comments of the John Barton and his co-editor in the recent Oxford Bible Commentary to support this claim ("chastened historical criticism") plus I gave other examples. If you want further elaboration of this fact I suggest the following link (the article that was written by a Australian Christian apologist which I briefly mentioned earlier: ADSL, ADSL2+, Broadband plans, Internet, Telephone, VOIP, SIM | Internet Service | Adam Australia | Internet Service | Adam Australia
(see the essay "The Bible: Tested, True, Triumphant")

SOME ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY REGARDING THE BIBLE

Here is some interesting information I found at another website:

"No other book has been so chopped, knived, sifted, scrutinized and vilified. What book on philosophy or religion or psychology or belles letters of classical or modern times has been subject to such a mass attack as the Bible? With such venom and scepticism? With such thoroughness and erudition? Upon every chapter, line and tenet?"

Bernard Ramm

The author of the website writes:

"So many sceptics, Kings, Emperors, Priests, philosophers and revolutionaries have tried to destroy, disprove or deny the bible over the last few thousand years, yet it's circulation continues to grow. What is the reason for the success of the bible in spite of these almost overwhelming attacks? Is it merely a coincidence? Maybe it is due to the reliability and quality of the book, as we have seen in this chapter, or could there possibly be a divine influence behind all this?"

the last two paragraphs were taken from:http://www.stilez.freeserve.co.uk/apol/int2.html

I updated my Bible inerrancy resources. Here is the updated resource information: http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=199&vi...

[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-07-2004]

Replies to this message:
	Message 2 by Yaro, posted 01-13-2004 10:29 PM	kendemyer has not replied
	Message 3 by PaulK, posted 01-14-2004 3:12 AM	kendemyer has not replied
	Message 4 by hitchy, posted 01-14-2004 8:22 AM	kendemyer has not replied
	Message 37 by Brian, posted 01-15-2004 4:46 AM	kendemyer has not replied
	Message 39 by RRoman, posted 01-15-2004 7:37 PM	kendemyer has not replied

kendemyer

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 7 of 61 (78421)
01-14-2004 12:05 PM

re: my original post and to PaulK

To: PaulK

Jericho’s wall - Has archaeology confirmed the biblical record of its destruction? - ChristianAnswers.Net (jericho)

The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404) (jericho)

Page not found | The Ensign Message (Exodus account)

http://ohr.edu/special/books/gott/truth-5.html (Jewish site, Exodus/jericho)

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/thera.html (Exodus)

Page not found - aish.com (Jewish site, Exodus)

http://www.empirebaptistministries.org/doc/ds_docs/sinai.htm (Exodus, new type of evidence using new technology discussed)

exoduspath (Exodus, new type of evidence using new technology discussed)

Search | United Church of God (Exodus)

Debate Topics: Historical (Exodus)

Page Not Found (Easter accounts)

http://www.myfortress.org/simongreenleaf.html (Easter accounts, Simon Greenleaf who wrote a classic work on evidence that is still referred to today. Greenleaf was one of the founders of Harvard law school. He was a skeptic but upon examining the evidence for the resurrection [as a result of his student's challenge] Greenleaf became a Christian)

Page not found | bibleteacher.org (Simon Greenleaf's essay, Testimony of the Evangelists)

Page not found - FaithSearch International (nativity accounts)

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_04_03.html (nativity accounts)

http://www.tektonics.org/censuscheck.html (nativity accounts)

http://www.biblehistory.net/Chap2.htm (census)

Again, I would remind those who want to debate me on this issue that my purpose here was to give resources to Christians regarding the issue of Bible inerrancy. I enjoy debate but time constraints prohibit me from actively debating at this time.

Re: replies to my Bible inerrancy post

It has been said that when truth and error wrestle on a fair playing field that truth will always prevail. The intent of my post was to give Christians some resources so that they would have the requisite information to make an informed decision.

I also would say that truth is knowleable. I believe that saying truth is not knowable is a self refuting statement. For if you state that truth is not knowable then how can we accept the truth of the statement "truth is not knowable." As far as you probably being able to give a convincing case for Hinduism or any other position I would say that you are welcome to start a string advocating Hinduism or any other position to see if it can withstand scrutiny. As a Christian, my conscience compels me to say that Christ is the only way to heaven. I realize that others assert otherwise so each reader is going to have to decide for themselves given the evidence I have provided plus using the other evidence available at other resources. I also believe that God will reveal Himself to those who ask with sincerity. Ultimately, each person must examine the available evidence and take measures to examine his own conscience.

Also, I did provide a specific essay of mine to show "good faith" on my part and that I am not just flinging out information that I have not diligently researched and carefully thought through (see the last link in my initial string post). I have provided specific examples that support Bible inerrancy in my essay (regarding the specific issue I discussed plus I gave some parrallel examples) plus I provided Christian apologetic sites so that the reader can decide the issue themselves regarding Bible inerrancy. I believe obviously that the Christian faith is a reasonable faith and not blind faith or I would not have written my essay or offered additional resources.

In addition, I would remind you that at this time, time constraints limit my ability to debate. The specific essay I wrote was very time consuming and now I have a lot on my plate. Perhaps, later I will decide to join a debate on this topic for people who wish to discuss this issue. I realize that people dispute the Bible on specific points but I have come to the conclusion that the objections are not warranted and there is good evidence pointing to Bible inerrancy on these points based on my studies. For now, I wanted to provide this information and let the readers decide for themselves.

I realize you may have debated this issue before and my purpose here was to provide a source that lists the best sources of information that advocate Bible inerrancy because I have not seen a webpage that provides a guidepost for the best resources.

Lastly, here is some Bible archeology information:

A DISCUSSION OF BIBLE ARCHAEOLOGY

SOME QUOTES OF PROMINENT BIBLE ARCHAEOLOGISTS AND OTHERS

"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical description has often led to amazing discoveries."

Dr. Nelson Glueck, reknowned Jewish archeologist. (taken from:http://www.myfortress.org/archaeology.html )

"Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts......Yet archaeological discoveries have shown that these critical charges.....are wrong and that the Bible is trustworthy in the very statements which have been set aside as untrustworthy.....We do not know of any cases where the Bible has been proved wrong."

Dr. Joseph P. Free. (taken from: http://www.myfortress.org/archaeology.html )

"The reader may rest assured that nothing has been found [by archaeologists] to disturb a reasonable faith, and nothing has been discovered which can disprove a single theological doctrine. We no longer trouble ourselves with attempts to 'harmonize' religion and science, or to 'prove' the Bible. The Bible can stand for itself."

Dr. William F. Albright, eminent archeologist who confired the authenticity of the Dead Sea Scrolls following their discovery (taken from:http://www.myfortress.org/archaeology.html)

"There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition."

Dr. William F. Albright (taken from: http://www.gospeloutreach.net/bible.html )

"On the whole, however, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine....Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. It has shown, in a number of instances, that these views rest on false assumptions and unreal, artificial schemes of historical development. This is a real contribution and not to be minimized."

Millar Burrows, Professor of Archaeology at Yale University (taken from:
http://www.greatcom.org/resources/know_why...p07/default.htm

"It is therefore legitimate to say that, in respect of that part of the Old Testament against which the disintegrating criticism of the last half of the nineteenth century was chiefly directed, the evidence of archaeology has been to reestablish its authority and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting. Archaeology has not yet said its last word, but the results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest — that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase in knowledge...
It is therefore legitimate to say that, in respect of that part of the Old Testament against which the disintegrating criticism of the last half of the nineteenth century was chiefly directed, the evidence of archaeology has been to reestablish its authority and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting. Archaeology has not yet said its last word, but the results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest — that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase in knowledge."

Sir Frederic Kenyon, a former director of the British Museum (taken from:
http://www.greatcom.org/resources/know_why...p07/default.htm

"I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it there. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment."

Sir William Ramsey, eminent archaeologists who changed his mind regarding Luke after extensive study (taken from: http://www.myfortress.org/archaeology.html )

Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of facts trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense...In short this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."

Sir William Ramsey, archaeologist (taken from: http://godisforus.com/information/bible/ev...archaeology.htm )

"In every instance where the findings of archaeology pertain to the Biblical record, the archaeological evidence confirms, sometimes in detailed fashion, the historical accuracy of Scripture. In those instances where the archaeological findings seem to be at variance with the Bible, the discrepancy lies with the archaeological evidence, i.e., improper interpretation, lack of evidence, etc. -- not with the Bible."

Dr. Bryant C. Wood, archaeologist, Associates for Biblical Research (taken from:http://www.myfortress.org/archaeology.html )

"Through the wealth of data uncovered by historical and archaeological research, we are able to measure the Bible's historical accuracy. In every case where its claims can thus be tested, the Bible proves to be accurate and reliable."

Dr. Jack Cottrell (taken from: http://www.myfortress.org/archaeology.html )

"I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen."

Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology

taken from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3893.asp

Finally, The reknowned archaeologist Millar Burrow of Yale states, "The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural."
(taken from: http://godisforus.com/information/bible/ev...rchaeology.htm)

ARCHAEOLOGY CAN CORROBORATE BUT NOT PROVE THE BIBLE

See this Jewish site: http://ohr.edu/special/books/gott/truth-5.htm

(I am a Christian but I felt as though this was a good article)

EXAMPLES OF BIBLE ARCHAEOLOGY

http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1998/r&r9806a.htm

http://www.theexaminer.org/volume5/number3/bible.htm

LIMITATIONS OF ARCHAEOLOGY

While archaeology is of great help to our understanding the Bible, the biblical evidence in the text must be given priority over the archaeological evidence from the field. The reason for this is the inherent limitations of archaeology. The primary limitation of archaeology is the extremely fragmentary nature of the archaeological evidence. Only a fraction of what is made or what is written survives. Most of the great Near Eastern archives were destroyed in antiquity through wars, looters, natural disasters or the ravages of time. To this we must add the limitation that less than 2% of sites in Israel have been excavated and hundreds more will never be excavated due to lack of access or resources and destruction through building projects, military maneuvers, and pillaging by Bedouins. Even when this small percentage of sites are excavated, only a fraction of the site is actually examined, and then only a percentage of what is excavated is ever published. Of the 500,000 cuneiform texts that are known to have been discovered over the past 100 years, only 10% have ever been published.

(this was taken from: http://www.imja.com/Archeology.html )

ARCHAEOLOGY CONTROVERSIES

Most of the controversies in Bible archaelogy has to do with dating. I personally, think this is now the weakest link in archaeology.

Here is a website that discusses this:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/rr1993/r&r9311a.htm

[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-05-2004]

kendemyer

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 8 of 61 (78444)
01-14-2004 2:50 PM

addendum to previous post, Bible inerrancy

Dear Readers:

While I believe the links I gave give excellent responses to various objections to the Bible I would also say the web searches are also invaluable. For example, I looked into some of the objections that a skeptic raised in this forum before he raised them so I have at my disposal the following websites (this is not a exhaustive list of what I had found on the web but merely some highlights):

Flood Legends From Around the World (Noah's ark, discusses world flood legends/accounts)

http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/amark.htm (Noah's ark, if God could design bees that make hive cells with hexagons and rhombic dodecahedrons with superb angles [provides outstanding storage capabilities with very little beeswax used. Fontenelle, the secretary of the French Academy was amazed and the cell design as said it used the highest mathematics. Remember bees have non-mammalian brains so abstract thought is not conceivable], God could help Noah to construct a great ark)

[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-05-2004]

Replies to this message:
	Message 14 by MrHambre, posted 01-14-2004 5:22 PM	kendemyer has not replied
	Message 44 by MarkAustin, posted 01-16-2004 8:20 AM	kendemyer has not replied

kendemyer

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 11 of 61 (78466)
01-14-2004 5:04 PM

More Bible Inerrancy information

Here is some more information that is relevant to Bible Inerrancy:

WHO WINS THE CREATIONIST/EVOLUTIONIST DEBATES?

http://members.shaw.ca/mark.64/hcib/whowins.html

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm

(I read the Wall Street Journal article quoted in the first link. It was an science professor from the Univerisity of MN and evolutionist who was quoted as saying the creationists "tend to win the debates").

THE FOSSIL RECORD SUPPORTS CREATIONISM

Completeness of the fossil record:

"There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world."*Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129.

"Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track.

The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record."

Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9

OTHER COMMENTS REGARDING THE FOSSIL RECORD

"The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of any record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement or one by another, and change is more or less abrupt." Robert G. Wesson,
'Beyond Natural Selection', 1991, p. 45

Quote regarding the general state of the fossil record from a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History:

"Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

You say that I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.'

I will lay it on the linethere is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record."

Dr. Colin Patterson,
Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History (Dr. Patterson is a evolutionist but honest enough to make this declaration), London "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth Edition, 1988, p89

Quote from author, paleontologist, evolutionist, and curator of invertebrate paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, Niles Eldredge and co-author Ian Tattersall who is Curator, Deptartment of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History and who is also a evolutionist).

"Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...

One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.

The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."

Niles Eldredge & Ian Tattersall,
'The Myths of Human Evolution', 1982, p. 45-46

A widely read evolutionist and scientist states the following regarding the fosssil record:

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831 (Mark Ridley is an evolutionist)

Some quotes regarding the fossil record that are more specific:

"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation." - E.J.H. Corner, Prof of Botany, Cambridge University, England.
E.J. H. Corner, Evolution in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97

"If the genealogies of animals are uncertain, more so are those of plants. We cannot learn a great deal from petrified plant anatomy which shows different spades at different times, but no real phylogeny [transitional plant species changes] at all. There are simply fascinating varieties of the plants we have todaysome new species of courseplus many extinctions: but algae, mosses, pines, ferns and flowering plants are all clearly recognizable from their first appearance in the fossil record." Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 181.

"We do not know the phylogenetic history of any group of plants and animals." *E. Core, General Biology (1981), p. 299.

"Fossil remains, however, give no information on the origin of the vertebrates." *Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7, p. 587 (1976 edition, Macropaedia).

"No fossil of any such birdlike reptile has yet been found." World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 291 (1982 edition). (regarding reptiles becoming birds)

"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that." Dr. J. Alan Feduccia,
Prof. Avian Evolution and world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina. Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms by V. Morell, Science 259(5096):764—65, 5 February 1993.

"For use in understanding the evolution of vertebrate flight, the early record of pterosaurs and bats is disappointing: Their most primitive representatives are fully transformed as capable fliers." Paul C. Sereno,
The evolution of dinosaurs, Science 284(5423):2137—2147 (quote on p. 2143), June 25, 1999

"The fossil record does not give any information on the origin of insects." *Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7, p. 585 (1978 edition; Macropaedia).

"Insect origins beyond that point [the Carboniferous] are shrouded in mystery. It might almost seem that the insects had suddenly appeared on the scene, but this is not in agreement with accepted [evolutionary] ideas of animal origins." *A.E. Hutchins, Insects (1988), pp. 3,4.

"The common ancestor of the bony-fish groups is unknown. There are various features, many of them noted above, in which the two typical subclasses of bony fish are already widely divergent when we first see them." *A.S. Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology (1988), p. 53.

"....squirrels have evolved in patterns that seem to differ in no important ways from their living relative Sciurus. Since Sciurus is so similar to what is apparently the primitive squirrel morphotype, it seems to fit the concept of 'living fossil.’" —*R. Emry and *A. Thorington, "The Tree Squirrel Sciurus as a Living Fossil," in Living Fossils (1984), p. 30.

"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter." - Dr. Lyall Watson, Anthropologist. 'The water people'. Science Digest, vol. 90, May 1982, p. 44.

"Unfortunately, the fossil record which would enable us to trace the emergence of the apes is still hopelessly incomplete. We do not know either when or where distinctively apelike animals first began to diverge from monkey stock . . Unfortunately, the early stages of man's evolutionary progress along his own individual line remain a total mystery." *Sarel Elmer and *Irven DeVore and the *Editors of Life, The Primates (1985), p. 15.

"No fossil or other physical evidence directly connects man to ape." *John Gliedman, "Miracle Mutations," Science Digest, February 1982, p. 90.

"Even this relatively recent history [of evolution from apes to man] is shot through with uncertainties; authorities are often at odds, both about fundamentals and about details." Theodosius Dobzhanski (he was an evolutionist), Mankind Evolving, Yale Univ. Press, 1962, p168.

LARGE RESOURCE OF QUOTATIONS REGARDING THE FOSSIL RECORD

http://evolution-facts.org/a17c.htm

FIVE MUSEUM OFFICIALS SPEAK REGARDING THE LACK OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS

http://www.creationism.org/books/sunderlan...1TheProblem.htm

MORE INFORMATION REGARDING THE LACK OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter3.asp

THE SEARCH FOR MAN'S MISSING LINK CAME UP EMPTY

Large number of articles: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...nthropology.asp

More examples of false missing links: http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2002/res0205b.htm

An essay: The Fruitless Search for the Missing Link by Jerry Bergman

http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BMissingLink...essSearch49.htm

WHY THE FIRST LIFE ON EARTH DID NOT ARISE NATURALLY

Excellent origin of life essay: http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html

More articles on the origin of life: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp

FIVE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE MACROEVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESIS

Five Failures of Macroevolutionary Model: http://www.probe.org/docs/5crises.html

OTHER ESSAYS ON CREATIONISM

General essays: http://www.apologetics.org/articles/articles.html

QUOTES FROM SCIENTIST AND OTHERS THAT LEND SUPPORT TO CREATIONISM

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/cequotes.html

http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php

http://www.nwcreation.net/quotes.html

YOUNG EARTH ARGUMENTSTHAT SUPPORT CREATIONISM

http://www.age-of-earth.com/

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.html

http://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/2001/dd-01-16.htm

LARGE DIRECTORY OF CREATIONIST SITES

http://members.aol.com/dwr51055/Creation.html

SOME EVOLUTIONISTS COMMENT ON THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS IN THE EVOLUTIONIST CAMP

"So heated is the debate that one Darwinian says there are times when he thinks about going into a field with more intellectual honesty: the used-car business."
-Sharon Begley, "Science Contra Darwin," Newsweek, April 8, 1985, p. 80.

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, .... in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Richard Lewontin, Professor, geneticist. "The New York Review", January 9, 1997, p. 31

THE UNIVERSE IS NOT ETERNAL

http://godevidences.net/lawsofscience.html

http://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/2001/dd-01-17.htm

http://www.godandscience.org/slideshow/sld010.html

IS GOD ETERNAL?

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html

http://www.carm.org/questions/God_created.htm

BIG BANG THEORY PROBLEMS AND CRITICISMS

Brief webpages:

http://www.origin-of-the-universe.com/

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-216.htm

http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/december99.htm

http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2001/dc-01-04.htm

Excellent Comprehensive Essay:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2003/r&r0305ad3.htm

CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE

http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

http://www.carm.org/issues/science.htm

ONLINE CREATIONISM BOOK (UNIQUE)

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ441.html

FALL OF MAN AND CREATION

http://www.ldolphin.org/Ruin.html

re: Quotes of evolutionist

I wanted to speak briefly regarding the evolutionist quotes I used in the previous post. First of all I do believe in not taking quotes radically out of context. For example, unless a lot of fairness is used I generally do not like quotes of partial sentences and find them suspect. For example, the Bible says, "....there is no God." Bible scholars will tell you, however, that the Bible declares, "The fool in his heart says there is no God." On the other hand, in a court of law attorneys and judges will cross examine a witness and highlight certain portions of their testimony to show inconsistency. In short, I find that the legal/historical method of discovering truth can shed additional light regarding science issues. Now I do not believe for one instant that some of the evolutionist would like me emphasizing key portions of their public testimony in order to make a point favoring the creationist position. This does not bother me. I clearly indicated that some of the gentleman were evolutionist yet I quoted them in areas we agree. I see nothing whatsoever wrong in doing so. I also recognize that using quotes has its limitations and is not meant to replace a thorough study of the matter.

Lastly, many of the quotes are from the 1980's although some are from the 1990's and post 2000. I would remind the readers that in 1980 the evolutionists had over 120 years to prove their case and still did not do it. I would also remind the readers that an appeal to novelty is a logical fallacy. Please see this webpages information:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/a...to-novelty.html

In regards to the above link, while new ideas can overturn old ideas this is not guaranteed by any means. Many times new ideas are have not been sufficiently tested. Of course, this does not mean that we do not seek new information to build on our existing knowledge. I also realize that people can stubbornly stick to antiquated ideas, however, at the same time I also realize that people can jump on new fads prematurely. After all is said and done it is not the newness or oldness of ideas or information but it is their validity that most matters.

WHY THE CASE FOR CREATIONISM IS BUILDING AS NEW EVIDENCE IS INTRODUCED

We discussed the logical fallacy of appeal to novelty and why it is the validity of inofrmation and not whether it is new or old information that is truly important.
At the same time, I would not deny there is new information that sheds light on the issue on whether or not God or naturalistic forces created all the various life forms on earth. The Wall Street Journal article I referred to earlier has an evolutionist declare the creationist are "picking up steam". I believe they are picking up steam because as our knowledge in various science disciplines increases the attempted naturalistic explanations fail in more or more ways. For example, the abiogenesis hypothesis as new evidence comes out is increasingly under attack.

THE FAILURE OF THE ABIOGENESIS HYPOTHESIS BECOMES MORE EVIDENT WITH NEW INFORMATION

Here is an essay by a gentleman I have email correspondeded with. I think he has written a very excellent essay on the topic of the abiogenesis hypothesis:

http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

I think if you look at that essays sources there are numerous citations from the 1990's and this reflects that there is new information that is coming out against the attempted naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.

THE IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY FOUND IN NATURE SHOWS ITSELF TO BE A STRONG CASE FOR CREATIONISM

Here are two articles published in the 1990's that definitely indicate that a purely naturalistic explanation for life is done if irreducibly complex systems exist and the best information we have at this time is that they do exist:

publhttp://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_trueacidtest.htm

http://www.apologetics.org/articles/machines.html

The work of Behe (who is a evolutionist although a theistic evolutionist) prompted the evolutionary scientist Thornhill and Ussery to clarify the issue of irreducible complexity within a macroevolutionary model. I think if you read their work below using the citation I give you this will cleary enable you too see that Behe has not been refuted whatsoever:

Thornhill, R.H. and Ussery, D.W., (2000) A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 203: 111-116.

BEHE WRITES A LETTER TO THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The Wall Street Journal
February 27, 2004

"We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

So lamented Colorado State University biochemist Franklin Harold in "The Way of the Cell" (Oxford University Press, 2001). Ms. Begley reports the very latest "wishful speculations." The flagellum, an astonishingly complex biological outboard motor that some bacteria use to swim, has in recent years been found to be even more sophisticated. Not only does it have a rotary nanomotor that has been dubbed "the most efficient machine in the universe," but we now know it also contains intricate protein pumps that allow it to construct itself, something no human-made machine can do. With breathtaking chutzpah but bizarre logic, a few rather unreflective Darwinists are spinning the increased complexity, which they neither predicted nor explained, as a public relations reprieve for their moribund theory. It's like contending that, although wheels, chassis and a steering column give a car the appearance of intelligent design, when the fuel pump is discovered then happenstance is a better explanation.

The Darwinian imagination is a marvel to behold. No wonder Darwinists try to rule out intelligent design "as a matter of principle." It surely can't be ruled out by the evidence.

Michael J. Behe
Professor of Biological Sciences
Lehigh University
Bethlehem, Pa.

MORE DETAILED RESPONSE OF BEHE

Now there is no denying the evolutionist who oppose Behe's arguments have attempted to bring forth criticisms of Behe but I believe that if you examine Behe's reply to his critics you will see the inherent soundness of Behe's work and the unsoundness the macroevolutionary hypothesis. I offer the following website of Behe:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:u7ybu...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

So I definitely believe that new information has shed additional light on this subject. I I think it has made the very strong position of creationism even more stronger.

Why Darwinism is Theologically Unsound

The book of Genesis declares the following:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." - Genesis 1:26

Now I would ask any person who is a Christian and declares they are adherent of the macroevlutionary explanation for man's arrival on earth this question:

"If men are descendants of apes, where along the way did men obtain their image of God?"

Secondly, the Bible declares the following:

"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

Accordingly I would ask the following question:

"What about the immense suffering caused by mutations and death?"

The Bible declares that man's sin caused their to be death, disease, and suffering when they chose to sin. Clearly, the Bible declares that when God looked upon sinless creation it was "very good."

Why Creationism Uses Sound Biblical Exegesis

1. Are the days in Genesis chapter one 24 hour days?

A website declares:

"Words generally do not hang in space and in isolation from other words. When they appear in writing, they are always surrounded by other words which serve as modifiers and/or clarifiers...

...The numerical qualifier demands a 24-hour day.

The word "day" appears over 200 times in the Old Testament with numbers (i.e., first day, second day, etc.). In every single case, without exception, it refers to a 24-hour day. Each of the six days of the creation week is so qualified and therefore the consistency of Old Testament usage requires a 24-hour day in Genesis 1 as well.

...The terms "evening and morning" require a 24-hour day.

The words evening (52 times) and morning (220 times) always refer to normal days where they are used elsewhere in the Old Testament. The Jewish day began in the evening (sunset) and ended with the start of the evening the following day. Thus it is appropriate that the sequence is evening-morning (of a normal day) rather than morning-evening (= start and finish). The literal Hebrew is even more pronounced: "There was evening and there was morning, day one. . . . There was evening and there was morning, day two," etc.

...The words "day" and "night" are part of a normal 24-hour day.

In Genesis 1:5, 14-18, the words day and night are used nine times in such a manner that they can refer only to the light and dark periods of a normal, 24-hour day.

...Genesis 1:14 distinguishes between days, years, and seasons.

And God said, "Let there be light-makers in the expanse above to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for the determination of seasons and for days and for years.

Clearly the word days here represents days, years represents years, seasons represents seasons. It is a red herring to claim that, if the sun did not appear until the fourth day, there could be no days and nights on the first three days. The Bible clearly says that there was a light source (apparently temporary in nature, Genesis 1:3), that there were periods of alternating light and darkness (1:4-5), and that there were evenings and mornings for those first three days (1:5, 8,13)....

...The testimony of the fourth Commandment.

It is a marvelous thing to observe the unity of the Scriptures and the orderliness with which God carries out His plans. Have you ever wondered why there were six days of creation, rather than some other number? In the light of the apparently instantaneous creation of the new heavens and new earth of Revelation 21, and the instantaneous nature of the miracles of the New Testament, why is it that God takes as long as six days to create everything? And why is it that God rested on the seventh day? Was He tired after all this exertion? No, Psalm 33:6-9 state that "the heavens were made by the Word of the Lord . . . He spoke and it was done. He commanded and it stood fast." There is no hint of exertion here. Genesis 2:2-3 merely means that He ceased working because the created order was completed, not because He was tired.

The commentary on these questions is found in Exodus 20:8-11, and it reads as follows:

verse 8 - Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
verse 9 - Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
verse 10 - But the seventh day is the sabbath (rest) of the Lord your God. In it you shall not do any work...
verse 11 - For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them and rested on the seventh day...

Verses 8-10 speak of man working six days and ceasing from his work on the seventh. These are obviously not eons of time, but normal 24-hour days. A key word in verse 11 is for, because it introduces the rationale or foundation for the previous command. It continues by equating the time period of creation with the time period of man's work week (six days plus one day) and states that God Himself had set the example in Genesis 1. That indeed is the reason why the creation week was 7 days no more, no less. The passage becomes nonsense if it reads: "Work for six days and rest on the seventh, because God worked for six billion years and is now resting during the seventh billion-year period." If God is resting, who parted the waters of the Red Sea in Exodus 14? And what did Jesus mean in John 5:17 when He said, "My Father is working until now, and I myself am working"?"

taken from:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-081.htm

Here is some Bible inerrancy information in regards to Bible prophecy:

BIBLE PROPHECY: NOTHING COMPARES

No book or person has ever remotely compared to the Bible in terms of foretelling the future in terms of specificity, numbers of prophecies, or accuracy of prophecy. We will take a look at non-Bible pyschics and mediums first and then show the amazing accuracy of Bible prophets (a true prophet is correct 100% of the time).

BIBLE PROPHETS VERSUS NON-BIBLE MEDIUMS/PSYCHICS

Brookside Church in Ohio states the following regarding the Bible's laws regarding prophets and the accuracy of modern day psychics as reported by a recent study:

"A true prophet is correct 100% of the time. A test of a prophet was whether they prophesied an event that did not come to pass. Prophets whose predictions failed to come to pass were stoned. People would think twice before revealing any kind of prophecy. Yet the Bible contains more prophecy about Jesus than any other book on any other founder of ancient religion.

Today there are people who claim to have psychic power. In 1975, The People's Almanac did a study of 25 of the best psychics. Out of 72 predictions, 66 (92%) were totally wrong. The remaining 8% could be explained away."

Taken from the following website: http://www.brooksidechurch.com/etw/jc7.htm

Norman Geisler on Nostradomus:

Page Not Found - JA Show

Article that discusses Jeanne Dixon and Nostradomus:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/nostradamu...ward__vanp.html

GENERAL ARTICLE: PROPHECY AS A DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE

http://www.equip.org/free/DA151.htm

TYRE AND JERUSALEM IN PROPHECY

Page not found – The Arthur C. Custance Centre

SOME PROPHECIES OF THE BIBLE

http://www.100prophecies.org/default.htm

christadelphian.org.uk

MESSIANIC PROPHECY FULFILLED IN JESUS

Page Not Found

Here is an excellent essay by Gary Habermas regarding the historicity of the New Testament

Page not found - Apologetics.com

[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-05-2004]

kendemyer

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 13 of 61 (78469)
01-14-2004 5:13 PM

re: Bible inerrancy

Here is another essay I recommend regarding Bible inerrancy:

http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_IHI.html

Here is something written about one of the central claims of the Bible, the resurrection by author William Lane Craig:

Page not found - Apologetics.com

[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-03-2004]

kendemyer

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 16 of 61 (78492)
01-14-2004 7:38 PM

re: Bible inerrancy

Dear Readers:

Here is the rationale I have heard regarding the importance that the original documents of the Bible were inerrant (copyist errors, etc. I do realize that there is no body of ancient literature that has been better preserved than the New Testament and that the Massorites did a incredible job of preserving the Old Testament as evidenced by the Dead Sea scrolls):

Jesus said, "He who is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and he who is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much (Luke 16:10). A gentleman who wrote an article to defend the Bible said if we cannot trust the Bible in mundane small and verifiable points then its bigger more untestable claims could be argued to be suspect. I would argue that the Bible has been faithful in little and in much.

I realize that scientists can build upon the partial mistakes of others but I would argue that in a very large amount of cases the Bible has proved to be true in the long run and the consensus of scientists (social scientists included) has been proven wrong. Here are just a few of the examples:

I would also argue that although Christians are in no way under the Mosaic Law as per Paul in Galations(dietary laws, sanitation laws)I would argue that the Mosaic law was way ahead of its time as can be seen in these links which would certainly support the doctrine of Bible inerrancy:

http://www.godstruth.org/chap08

Forbidden

Much has been written about scientific foreknowledge and the Bible. Here is one example I will give you:

ADSL, ADSL2+, Broadband plans, Internet, Telephone, VOIP, SIM | Internet Service | Adam Australia | Internet Service | Adam Australia

Lastly, I would remind the Bible's critics that modern science and the scientific method did not originate during the skeptical periods of Greek philosophy but it occured in Christianized Europe which had a worldview conduscive to science. Here is a site which gives the details:

http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

Here is an excellent article:

Bible - How it came to be
A detailed look at how the Bible was preserved

AN OVERVIEW FROM AN OLD
ARTICLE

Before we explore the difficult area of translating the
Hebrew OT from Hebrew into the English language(which part 7
contains), I think it would be good to give you some excerpts
from an article written that was part of a publication by the
Worldwide Church of God back in 1980. The publication was called
"The Authority of the Bible" and the article within it that I
will quote from was called "Has the Bible Been Preserved
Accurately?" and its author was Neil Earle.

All large capital letter emphasis is mine - Keith Hunt.

Quote:

Could a collection of writings scattered over 1,500 years of
composition, spanning 60 generations and authored by 40-plus
writers in THREE languages survive such a journey? Jesus Christ said YES. The skeptics DISAGREE........

Critical doubts and scholarly questions do not constitute
refutation......The document gets the benefit of any doubt. The
burden of proof lies with the skeptic!

A nation of priests

The evidence for the integrity and authenticity of the
documents underlying the biblical text makes a fascinating story.
It begins with the Eternal God's selection of an entire
nation as a "kingdom of priests" (Ex.19:6). The CARE and
PRESERVATION of Israel's lively oracles was ultimately to become
a solemn duty of PROFESSIONALS called scribes.

How easy was it to palm off forgeries on the SPECIALLY
CHOSEN teachers of the tribe of LEVI (Deut.33:10)? How did later
educated Jews feel about the authenticity of the documents they
VENERATED as the "holy scriptures" (2 Tim.3:15)?
Let JOSEPHUS, a Jewish historian of the first century,
answer:

' From Artaxerxes (Malachi's time) until our time everything
has been recorded but has not been deemed worthy of like credit
with what has preceded, because the exact succession of prophets
ceased. But what faith we have placed in our own writings is
evident by our conduct; FOR though so long a time has now passed,
NO ONE HAS DARED TO ADD ANYTHING TO THEM, OR ALTER ANYTHING IN
THEM' (Contra Apion, Whiston's Josephus, p.609).

Often overlooked is that the law, prophets, and writings,
which were accepted by Jesus (Luke 24:44), formed the BASIS FOR
THE LEGAL PRACTICES of the Jewish nation. These religious
writings had NATIONAL IMPACT equal to Britain's Magna Carta...or
America's Plymouth Rock Covenant and Declaration of
Independence....Animosity was, paradoxically, a powerful force in
PRESERVING the unimpeachability of Scripture. The appeal to the
text was the common arbiter in theological debate (Matt.19:7).
The Scriptures were known at the grass-roots level as well (Luke
4:16-20). UNOFFICIAL DELETIONS, INSERTIONS OR CORRUPTIONS would
have triggered an OUTCRY among the faithful in a nation ZEALOUS
FOR THE LAW (Acts 22:3).

TAMPER with the OFFICIAL Hebrew text? One may as well
consider EDITING the Declaration of Independence, DELETING a
sentence in a NEW copy of the Gettysburg Address......VITAL
literary production of NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE are too WELL KNOWN
to be PRIVATELY tampered with among the faithful. There were, of
course, enemies who tried to do so - and still do!

Today thousands of people have committed the TEN
COMMANDMENTS TO MEMORY. Imagine the PROTEST if a NEW Bible
translation INSERTED AN EXTRA commandment!.......

The Thread of Conveyance

Scripture itself speaks of a systematic, ORGANIZED
PRESERVATION of the law, prophets and writings.

Moses entrusted the law to the Levites guarding the ark,
center-piece of Israel's religion (Deut.31:24-26). Joshua 1:8
comments upon "this book of the law" that Moses' successor read
to the entire nation (Josh.8:32-35).

Literate, proficient scholars functioned even through the
chaotic Judges period (Judg.5:14, 1 Sam.1:3,9). Under Samuel
and David and Solomon, during Israel's Golden Age, inspired
writers laid the basis for the historical narratives in Samuel,
Kings and Chronicles. David revered the sacred writings
(Ps.119:97), and he and Solomon contributed and collected many
psalms and proverbs.

These writings formed the basis for successive national
revivals and reforms (2 Chron.17:7-9; 2 Kings 22:8). Later on
Isaiah and Hezekiah updated the text (Prov.25:1; Isa.8:16). In
this way "holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy
Spirit" (2 Pet.1:21). The writings of the prophets were accepted
- often after the death of the prophets - because of God's
evident approval and inspiration, shown through dramatic
fulfilment (Isa.38:4-7).

Even during the babylonian captivity Daniel had access to
the Scriptures (Dan.9:2), and the return to Jerusalem was greatly
influenced by Ezra, a "ready scribe" and guardian of the text
(Ezra 7:6,10). According to Jewish tradition, Ezra officially
updated and clarified the text in certain places(e.g.,Deut.34:5).
Shortly after his time the book of Malachi, the last OT prophet,
was written.

Ancient computers

How responsible was the transmission of the text? We can get
a good insight by surveying TWO PERIODS OF TRANSCRIPTION: from
the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 to about A.D. 500, and from A.D.
500 to A.D. 916.

In the first five centuries a group known as the TALMUDISTS
guarded and copied the text. A supreme effort to safeguard the
OT accompanied the scattering of the Jewish people after A.D. 70.
"A great rabbi - Yochanan ben Zakkia by name (reconstituted)
the SANHEDRIN AT JANNIA, between Joppa and Azotus. They
considered whether canonical recognition should be accorded to
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs and Esther......the
upshot was the firm acknowledgement of all these books as Holy
Scripture" (F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, p.97).....

TRANSCRIPTION WAS LETTER BY LETTER, WORD BY WORD, OR PHRASE
BY PHRASE! DILIGENCE, VENERATION, PROFESSIONALISM. THE HALL
MARKS OF THE TALMUDIST TRADITION!

The MASORETES (Hebrew Masorah, meaning "to deliver something
in to the hands of another") safeguarded the text from about A.D.
500 to A.D. 916. These dedicated scholars based in Tiberias
produced the Masoretic texts used today; they are the basis for
our English OT of 1611. "The Masorah is called 'a fence to the
scriptures' because it locked all words and letters in their
places. It records the number of times the several letters occur
in the Bible; the number of words and the middle word; the number
of verses and the middle verse, etc., for the set purpose of
preventing the loss or misplacement of a single letter or word"
(Bullinger, Companion Bible, Appendix 30).

Designating the middle letter of the Pentateuch and the
middle letter and verse of each book as well as the entire OT was
not enough for these technicians. Phrases were counted,
enumerated, distinguished. "House of Israel" was computed
separately from "sons of Israel" and the number of times each
occurred was well noted. The expression "sins of Jeroboam" is
noted separately from "the sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat."
thus the Jewish zeal for God was turned to good use (Romans
10:2).

So confident were the Talmudists and Masoretes that the
older documents were discarded. In the words of Sir Frederick
Kenyon, late curator of the British Museum, "Age gave no
advantage to a manuscript." Understanding the PRECISION and
SKILL of the Jewish scribes explains why. Who has ever counted
the letters of Shakespear, the words of Herodotus, the phrases of
Homer?

(Note: An interesting paragraph from the Companion Bible,
Appendix 30, that was not quoted by Earle is this:

" The Text itself had been fixed before the Massorites were
put in charge of it. This had been the work of the Sopherim [from
saphar, to count, or number]. Their work, under Ezra and
Nehemiah, was to set the Text in order after the return from
Babylon; and we read of it in Neh.8:8 [cp Ezra 7:6,11]. The men
of 'the Great Synagogue' completed the work. This work lasted
about 110 years, from Nehemiah to Simon the first, 410-300 B.C."
- Keith Hunt).

The Dead Sea Scrolls

............Then came 1947. One of the famous Dead Sea Scrolls
found was the COMPLETE Isaiah manuscript. Its date?
Approximately 125 B.C. This is a thousand years earlier than the
Masoretic tests. HOW DID IT COMPARE? Norman L. Geisler and
William E. Nix report:

"In one chapter of 166 words (Isa, 53) there is only ONE
WORD (three letters) in question after a thousand years of
transmission - and this word does not significantly change the
meaning of the passage" (General Introduction to the Bible,
p.263).

Minor stylistic and spelling variations PALE before the FACT
that the Isaiah scroll "proved to be WORD FOR WORD IDENTICAL with
our STANDARD HEBREW BIBLE in more than 95 percent of the text"
(Archer, A Survey of the OT, p.19).

In the words of Mr. Geisler and Mr. Nix, "the King James
Bible is 98.33 percent pure" when compared with the Dead Sea
Scrolls.

Yet, as the accuracy of the Talmudists and Masoretes SHOULD
DEMONSTRATE, the Dead Sea Scrolls NEED TO BE EVALUATED BY THE
OFFICIAL MASORETIC TEXT, NOT VICE VERSA.................

End of quotes from Neil Earle's article.

In our next study in this series we will look at the difficulties
of translating the OT Hebrew into English.

Here is the webpage this material was taken from:
http://www.keithhunt.com/Bible6.html

Here is some more excellent material:

Re: VARIANTS IN OLD TESTAMENT COPIES AND OTHER RELIABLITY ISSUES

Just the Facts, Ma’am

The question of authenticity is not really a religious concern at all; it’s an academic one. It can be answered in an academic way totally unrelated to spiritual convictions by a simple appeal to facts, an apologetic technique I call "Just the Facts, Ma’am."

The objection at first glance is compelling. When we try to conceptualize how to reconstruct an original after 2000 years of copying, translating, and copying some more, the task appears impossible. The skepticism, though, is based on two misconceptions about the transmission of ancient documents like the New Testament.

The first assumption is that the transmission is more or less linear, as in the telephone example—one person communicating to a second who communicates with a third, etc. In a linear paradigm people are left with one message and many generations between it and the original. Second, the telephone game example depends on oral transmission which is more easily distorted and misconstrued than something written.

Neither assumption applies to the written text of the New Testament. First, the transmission was not linear, but geometric—e.g., one letter birthed five copies which became 25 which became 200 and so on. Secondly, the transmission in question was done in writing, and written manuscripts can be tested in a way that oral communications cannot be tested.

Reconstructing Aunt Sally’s Letter

Let me illustrate how such a test can be made. It will help you to see how scholars can confidently reconstruct the text from existing manuscript copies even though the copies themselves have differences and are much older than the autograph (i.e., the original).

Pretend your Aunt Sally has a dream in which she learns the recipe for an elixir that would continuously maintain her youth. When she wakes up, she scribbles the directions on a scrap of paper, then runs into the kitchen to make up her first glass. In a few days her appearance is transformed. Sally is a picture of radiant youth because of her daily dose of what comes to be known as "Aunt Sally’s Secret Sauce."

Sally is so excited she sends hand-written instructions to her three bridge partners (Aunt Sally is still in the technological dark ages—no photocopier or email) giving detailed instructions on how to make the sauce. They, in turn, make copies and send them to ten of their own friends.

All is going well until one day Aunt Sally’s pet schnauzer eats the original copy of the recipe. Sally is beside herself. In a panic she contacts her three friends who have mysteriously suffered similar mishaps. Their copies are gone, too, so the alarm goes out to their friends in attempt to recover the original wording.

They finally round up all the surviving hand-written copies, twenty-six in all. When they spread them out on the kitchen table, they immediately notice some differences. Twenty-three of the copies are exactly the same. Of the remaining three, though, one has some misspelled words, another has two phrases inverted ("mix then chop" instead of "chop then mix") and one includes an ingredient that none of the others has on its list.

Here is the critical question: Do you think Aunt Sally can accurately reconstruct her original recipe from this evidence? Of course she could. The misspellings are obvious errors, and the single inverted phrase stands out and can easily be repaired. Sally would then simply strike the extra ingredient reasoning it’s more plausible one person would add an item by mistake than 25 people would accidentally omit it.

Even if the variations were more numerous or more diverse, the original could still be reconstructed with a high level of confidence if we had enough copies.

Once you understand how this works, it’s easy to see how even sixth-graders can get it right. Write two to four verses on the board, then tell the students to each make an exact copy on a sheet of paper, reminding them that their grade depends on accuracy.

When they’re finished, erase the board, destroying the "original." Collect the papers, redistribute them, and tell the students to copy the text a second time using the first copies as a guide. This produces a third generation manuscript.

Collect the second generation copies and trash them, along with half of the third generation manuscripts. Now invite the students to reproduce the originals from what remains.

Even if some knucklehead messes up, the rest of the students will be able to repair the breach because they have the documentation needed to make the correction.

This, in simplified form, is how the science of textual criticism works. Textual critics are academics who reconstruct a missing original from existing manuscripts that are generations removed from the autograph. According to New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce, "Its object [is] to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question."[2]

The science of textual criticism is used to test all documents of antiquity—not just religious texts—including historical and literary writings. It’s not a theological enterprise based on haphazard hopes and guesses; it’s a linguistic exercise that follows a set of established rules. Textual criticism allows an alert critic to determine the extent of possible corruption of any work.

How Many and How Old?

The ability of any scholar to do effective textual criticism depends on two factors. First, how many existing copies are there to examine and compare? Are there two copies, ten, a hundred? The more copies there are, the easier it is to make meaningful comparisons. Second, how close in time are the oldest existing documents to the original?

If the numbers are few and the time gap is wide, the original is harder to reconstruct with confidence. However, if there are many copies and the oldest existing copies are reasonably close in time to the original, the textual critic can be more confident he’s pinpointed the exact wording of the autograph.

To get an idea of the significance of the New Testament manuscript evidence, note for a moment the record for non-biblical texts. These are secular texts from antiquity that have been reconstructed with a high degree of certainty based on the available textual evidence.

The important First Century document The Jewish War, by Jewish aristocrat and historian Josephus, survives in only nine complete manuscripts dating from the 5th Century—four centuries after they were written.[3] Tacitus’ Annals of Imperial Rome is one of the chief historical sources for the Roman world of New Testament times, yet, surprisingly, it survives in partial form in only two manuscripts dating from the Middle Ages.[4] Thucydides’ History survives in eight copies. There are 10 copies of Caesar’s Gallic Wars, eight copies of Herodotus’ History, and seven copies of Plato, all dated over a millennium from the original. Homer’s Iliad has the most impressive manuscript evidence for any secular work with 647 existing copies.[5]

Bruce’s comments put the discussion in perspective: "No classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of any use to us are over 1300 years later than the originals."[6]

For most documents of antiquity only a handful of manuscripts exist, some facing a time gap of 800-2000 years or more. Yet scholars are confident of reconstructing the originals with a high degree of accuracy. In fact, virtually all of our knowledge of ancient history depends on documents like these.

see this URL for details:

Status

ALSO HERE IS SOME MORE USEFUL INFORMATION:

The Old Testament faced an entirely different situation than the New Testament. They had one chief worship center.

The scribes would specialize in copying the scriptures when they were worn. The scribes were extraordinarily careful in copying these texts. They would count the letters going each way. If they found one mistake, they would destroy that page. They did make occasional mistakes like the reversing of letters, but they did not dare tamper with God's Word. They preserved the integrity of the holy texts by burning the old ones with defects.

What happened as a result was that our latest copies (manuscripts) of the Old Testament scriptures were more than one or two thousand years from the time that they were written in some cases. People started wondering whether they were true.

Until recently, our most ancient copies (manuscripts) of the Old Testament were from the 10th century. They could of course check its message with the Septuagint which was written several hundred years before Christ. This was the Greek translation of the Old Testament that was in use in Jesus' day.

More recent archaeological findings, however, have swept this suspicion into the Mediterranean. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940s have shown that the Hebrew (Masoretic) text was accurately preserved. These scrolls were written 100 to 200 years before Jesus' time. So passages that clearly describe Jesus such as Isaiah 53 could no longer be said to be inserted after Jesus' time.

see this link for details: http://www.foundationsforfreedom.ne...eliability.html

HERE IS A VERY KEY POINT:

Of the passages in which textual variants occur, the vast majority involve minor differences in spelling or grammar which leave the meaning of the texts unaffected. Those passages in which potentially significant variations do occur are usually listed in footnotes in the better English translations and editions of the Bible, so any reader can know exactly where they appear. And it is fair to conclude that no point of Christian doctrine relies solely on disputed textual variants.

see this webpage for details: Domain Names, Web Hosting and Online Marketing Services | Network Solutions

KEY ISSUE REGARDING COPYISTS ERRORS:

http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_IHI.html

Here is some information by the Bible Scholar FF Bruce:

Re: VARIANTS IN OLD TESTAMENT COPIES AND OTHER RELIABLITY ISSUES

Just the Facts, Ma’am

Reconstructing Aunt Sally’s Letter

Even if the variations were more numerous or more diverse, the original could still be reconstructed with a high level of confidence if we had enough copies.

Collect the second generation copies and trash them, along with half of the third generation manuscripts. Now invite the students to reproduce the originals from what remains.

Even if some knucklehead messes up, the rest of the students will be able to repair the breach because they have the documentation needed to make the correction.

How Many and How Old?

see this URL for details:

Status

ALSO HERE IS SOME MORE USEFUL INFORMATION:

The Old Testament faced an entirely different situation than the New Testament. They had one chief worship center.

see this link for details: http://www.foundationsforfreedom.ne...eliability.html

HERE IS A VERY KEY POINT:

see this webpage for details: Domain Names, Web Hosting and Online Marketing Services | Network Solutions

KEY ISSUE REGARDING COPYISTS ERRORS:

http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_IHI.html

Here is some material by the Bible Scholar FF Bruce:

PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION

Reliable as what?' asked a discerning reviewer of the first edition of this little work, by way of a comment on the title. His point, I think, was that we should be concerned with the reliability of the New Testament as a witness to God's selfrevelation in Christ rather than with its reliability as a record of historical fact. True; but the two questions are closely related. For, since Christianity claims to be a historical revelation, it is not irrelevant to look at its foundation documents from the standpoint of historical criticism.

When the first edition of this book (my literary firstborn) appeared in 1943, I was a lecturer in classical studies, and had for long been accustomed to view he New Testament in its classical context. When I was invited from time to time to address audiences of sixth formers and university students on the trustworthiness of the New Testament in general and of the Gospel records in particular, my usual line was to show that the grounds for accepting the New Testament as trustworthy compared very favourably with the grounds on which classical students accepted the authenticity and credibility of many ancient documents. It was out of such talks that this book originally grew. It has (I am told) proved its usefulness to the readers for whom it was intended, not only in English speaking lands but in German and Spanish translations as well.

The historical and philological lines of approach have, of course, their limitations. They cannot establish the Christian claim that the New Testament completes the inspired record of divine revelation. But non-theological students (for whom the book was written) are, in my experience, more ready to countenance such a claim for a work which is historically reliable than for one which is not. And I think they are right. It is, indeed, difficult to restrict a discussion of the New Testament writings to the purely historical plane; theology insists on breaking in. But that is as it should be; history and theology are inextricably intertwined in the gospel of our salvation, which owes its eternal and universal validity to certain events which happened in Palestine when Tiberius ruled the Roman Empire.

I welcome the opportunity to give the book a thorough revision (not thorough enough, some of my friends may think); and in sending it forth afresh I continue to dedicate it to those university and college students throughout the world who, singly or in groups, maintain among their colleagues the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ our Lord.

F. F. B. April 1959.

taken from this URL: http://www.worldinvisible.com/...bruce/ntdocrli/ntdocprf.htm

4 online now:	DrJones*, LamarkNewAge, PaulK, Theodoric
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,912 Year: 4,169/9,624 Month: 1,040/974 Week: 367/286 Day: 10/13 Hour: 0/1