[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"cat-redesign:bible:en":3},{"categoryInfo":4},["Reactive",5],{"id":6,"name":7,"description":7,"slug":8,"background":9,"thumbnail":10,"supercategory":11,"created_at":12,"updated_at":13,"embed_thumbnail":14,"embed_icon":15,"featured_category":16,"name_es":17,"description_es":18,"playerembed":19,"order":6,"name_fr":20,"description_fr":20,"name_ko":21,"description_ko":21,"answers":22,"testimonials":190,"isVideo":166},3,"Bible","bible","https:\u002F\u002Fs3.amazonaws.com\u002Ftruelife1\u002Fbackgrounds\u002F3\u002Fcategorybackgrounds\u002Ffull.jpg","https:\u002F\u002Ftruelifeorg.s3.amazonaws.com\u002Fresources\u002F1671823852646_Screen%20Shot%202022-12-23%20at%202.30.09%20PM.png","Christianity","2019-12-19T19:24:45.184Z","2023-08-03T06:49:20.923Z","https:\u002F\u002Ftruelifeorg.s3.amazonaws.com\u002Fresources\u002F1671823854268_Screen%20Shot%202022-12-23%20at%202.30.09%20PM.png","https:\u002F\u002Ftruelifeorg.s3.amazonaws.com\u002Fresources\u002FBible.png",null,"La Biblia","\n\nLa Biblia","\u003Ciframe src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fplayer.vimeo.com\u002Fvideo\u002F8785509?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0&color=BF1E2E&autoplay=1\" width=\"935\" height=\"526\" frameborder=\"0\" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen>\u003C\u002Fiframe>","\n\nLa Bible","\n\n성경",[23,42,56,69,81,100,117,135,149,162,179],{"id":24,"title":25,"description":26,"featured":27,"transcript":28,"subtitle":28,"playerembed":28,"category_id":6,"slug":29,"answertype":30,"created_at":31,"updated_at":32,"thumbnail":33,"embed_thumbnail":34,"embed_icon":35,"title_es":36,"description_es":37,"playerembed_es":16,"transcript_es":16,"title_fr":38,"description_fr":39,"playerembed_fr":16,"transcript_fr":16,"title_ko":40,"description_ko":41,"playerembed_ko":16,"transcript_ko":16,"question_id":16,"category_slug":8,"category_name":-1},27,"Transcript: How Did We Get the New Testament?","\u003Cdiv> \u003Cdiv> \u003Cdiv> \u003Cdiv> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How Did We Get the New Testament?\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>A Study Guide\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>“We have no ancient sources about Jesus and Christianity from ‘neutral’ observers. Whether we are dealing with Roman writers like Tacitus or Jewish writers like Josephus or the New Testament writers themselves, none of these writers is attempting to give us an ‘objective’ assessment of the data, if by ‘objective’ one means value free or purely neutral. Thus, all the relevant ancient data must be critically sifted and evaluated . . . we must always ‘consider the source’ of the information as we evaluate its interpretation of the data.”\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>New Testament History: A Narrative Account, Ben Witherington III\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>The New Testament records the virgin birth, miracles, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but many are skeptical of the New Testament’s claims concerning Christ. So how can we know if the claims of the New Testament are true? We must first explore the origin of the New Testament. Jesus’ disciples first proclaimed Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection right after his resurrection and accession back to Heaven. This oral message [eventually] took on a written form. Its essential message appears in the four gospels.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>I. The Four Gospels\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>The three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were penned before AD 70. Matthew, one of the 12 disciples, recorded his first-hand account. Mark recorded the Apostle Peter's recollections. Luke, missionary companion of the Apostle Paul, consulted many eye-witnesses. John, also an eyewitness of Christ, penned his gospel toward the end of the 1st century.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>II. The NT Epistles\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Many New Testament Epistles were written before these gospel accounts. James, the Brother of Jesus, penned his book around AD 45, just over a decade after Christ’s death. Paul wrote his epistle to the Galatians around AD 47 to 48. These early epistles all clearly refer to Jesus as Lord, a reference to his deity.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>So we see that the New Testament epistles were written by the apostles during a period in history where the eye-witnesses were still alive, therefore they were personally able to validate the writings of the New Testament and prevented any myth from developing in the accounts. So what are the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament and how many do we have?\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>III. Earliest Manuscripts of the New Testament\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Early papyrus copies rapidly circulated throughout the Roman Empire. Scholars have discovered about 120 of these early manuscripts. Some even have large portions of the New Testament while others contain a single book or page. They date from about AD 100 to about AD 700. For example, the Apostle John wrote the fourth gospel at the end of the 1st century. A small papyrus fragment with a small portion of the gospel of John copied onto it was found in Egypt dating to the early 2nd century.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>This shows how quickly these gospels traveled. In 30 years, people had copied and transported this gospel far from its origin in Ephesus. Hundreds of copies were made. It would have been impossible for anyone to collect and change them all. This is why we can be assured that we have what was originally written by the apostles themselves. How reliable is the recorded information of the New Testament authors?\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>IV. Reliability of the New Testament Authors\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Eye-Witnesses: Many of the men who wrote the New Testament actually witnessed the events they recorded. The Apostle Peter said, ‘We were eye-witnesses of his majesty.” The Apostle John says, “We have seen with our eyes, have looked upon, and our hands have handled,\" referring to Jesus. John also says, “And the Word Jesus Christ became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory.”\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Some skeptics claim that none of the New Testament gospel writers met Jesus. The gospel of John bears all the marks of a true eye-witness account. It was clearly written by a Palestinian Jew, of the 1st century who was familiar with Jewish customs, religion, and geography.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>One critic, Sir William Ramsey investigated Luke’s gospel and the Book of Acts. Ramsey was surprised to find the books to be historically accurate with great precision and concluded that the works were completely authentic. As a result, he trusted Christ and become a great defender of the faith.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Our next question: “Why [were] the 27 books of the New Testament were accepted, while others were not?”\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>V. The New Testament Canon: A Brief History\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Inclusion in the Canon: A book was included in the New Testament, if: An Apostle, or a close companion of an apostle, wrote it. The books were written in the 1st century. The books would not contradict themselves or the Old Testament scriptures. They would be widely accepted by the early church.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Recognition of the Canon: The first person known to us to establish a complete list of New Testament books was Marcion around AD 140. History remembers Marcion merely because he established a shortened cannon list, including the gospel of Luke and the letters of Paul.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>By AD 180 the gospel canon was complete. The 2nd century Muratorian canon is a list of books regarded as authoritative in the early church at that time. It lists the four gospels, Acts, all 13 of Paul’s letters, plus the letters of John, Jude, and Revelation. By the end of the 2nd, other books (such as 1 Peter and 1 John) have also gained wide-acceptance. The Eastern church had also adopted Hebrews and the West accepted Revelation.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Some people claim that Constantine exerted a great influence on the books chosen for the New Testament and even their content. Nowhere is there any indication that Constantine tried to influence the selection or contents of the books of scripture. It would have been impossible for him to change the contents of individual books because they had circulated among the churches for over 200 years.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>The first person to publish a list of New Testament books exactly as it is today was Athenasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Easter letter in AD 367. Since then, few have questioned the contents of the canon, at least until recent times.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>VI. Transmission of the New Testament Over the Centuries\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Some critics claim that all we have today in our manuscripts and translations are the accumulated errors of centuries of copying the text with little or nothing resembling the original manuscripts from the 1st century. In the earliest period of copying, there were some still living (e.g. Papias and Polycarp) who personally knew the authors of the New Testament. There also remained some who were eye-witnesses of those recorded events. Those witnesses would have quickly pointed out any errors introduced by later copyists.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>What Happened to the Original Manuscripts? The NT writings were completed during the 1st century AD. However, their original fragile papyrus documents disappeared within years after they were written generally due to wear and tear. Yet the test of those original documents remained in existence, preserving copies and maintained through many subsequent generations that spanned the centuries.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Are the Copied Manuscripts Reliable? The New Testament has been copied thousand of times, which naturally leads to copyists errors, arising in some of the manuscripts. Fortunately, if the great number of New Testament manuscripts increases the number of scribal errors. It also increases proportionately the means of correcting the errors. The vast number of manuscripts ensures the spotting of scribal errors and also the ability to confidently preserve the exact wording of the originals by comparing the numerous copies of manuscripts.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Stable Transmission of the New Testament: Copies were not made at a single location. They [were not] deliberately conformed to a single master copy imposed by church authority. So the independence of the scribes at different locations created multiple lines of text transmission. When these independent lines agree on their text, their testimony is of the highest value. Through this process the common text accurately preserves the original writings of the apostles.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Vast Number of New Testament Manuscripts: To all this should be added the vast number of manuscript copies available. Between the 1st century and the 16th, there exist over 24 thousand manuscripts when you include Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and other ancient languages. In the Greek language alone, there are over 5400 manuscripts. This evidence serves as overwhelming confirmation of the integrity of the New Testament texts being preserved. There’s no other document in all of antiquity that even comes close to what we have in the Bible.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>VII. Translation of the New Testament Texts\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Can the Greek writings [of the New Testament] . . . be accurately translated into everyday languages of today? Absolutely! Numerous other works of classical Greek and Latin antiquity are known to the modern reader only in translation and the general reliability of such translations are hardly questioned. As long as the translator renders accurately and precisely what the Greek New Testament text itself states, here should be little question regarding the accuracy of meaning being conveyed from the original text to our modern translations.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Key Scriptures: 2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1; John 1:14\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Recommended Further Reading:\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Encountering the New Testament: A Historical and Theological Survey, by Walter A. Elwell\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>How We Got the Bible, by Neil R. Lightfoot\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>New Testament History: A Narrative Account, by Ben Witherington III\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>The New Testament Story, by Ben Witherington III\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\u003C\u002Fdiv>\u003Cdiv>\u003Cdiv>\u003Cdiv>\u003Cdiv> \u003C\u002Fdiv> \u003C\u002Fdiv> \u003C\u002Fdiv> \u003C\u002Fdiv>",false,"","transcript-how-did-we-get-the-new-testament","article","2019-12-19T17:41:40.363Z","2023-08-03T05:34:06.630Z","https:\u002F\u002Ftruelifeorg.s3.amazonaws.com\u002Fresources\u002F1661456840250_Screenshot%202022-08-25%20151856.png","https:\u002F\u002Ftruelifeorg.s3.amazonaws.com\u002Fthumb.png","https:\u002F\u002Ftruelifeorg.s3.amazonaws.com\u002FMarriage+Icon-01.png","Transcripción: ¿Cómo obtuvimos el Nuevo Testamento?","\u003Cp>Cómo obtuvimos el Nuevo Testamento?\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Una guía de estudio\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>\"No tenemos fuentes antiguas sobre Jesús y el cristianismo de observadores\" neutrales \". Si estamos tratando con escritores romanos como Tácito o escritores judíos como Josefo o los propios escritores del Nuevo Testamento, ninguno de estos escritores está tratando de darnos una evaluación \"objetiva\" de los datos, si por \"objetivo\" uno significa valor libre o puramente neutral. Por lo tanto, todos los datos antiguos relevantes deben ser críticamente cribados y evaluados. . . siempre debemos \"considerar la fuente\" de la información al evaluar su interpretación de los datos \". Historia del Nuevo Testamento: un relato narrativo, Ben Witherington III\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>El Nuevo Testamento registra el nacimiento virginal, los milagros, las enseñanzas, la muerte y la resurrección de Jesucristo, pero muchos son escépticos de las afirmaciones del Nuevo Testamento sobre Cristo. Entonces, ¿cómo podemos saber si las afirmaciones del Nuevo Testamento son verdaderas? Primero debemos explorar el origen del Nuevo Testamento. Los discípulos de Jesús primero proclamaron la muerte, sepultura y resurrección de Cristo justo después de su resurrección y adhesión al Cielo. Este mensaje oral [eventualmente] tomó una forma escrita. Su mensaje esencial aparece en los cuatro evangelios.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>I. Los cuatro evangelios\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Los tres evangelios sinópticos (Mateo, Marcos y Lucas) fueron escritos antes del año 70 DC. Mateo, uno de los 12 discípulos, registró su relato de primera mano.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Marcos registró los recuerdos del apóstol Pedro. Lucas, compañero misionero del apóstol Pablo, consultó a muchos testigos oculares. Juan, también testigo ocular de Cristo, escribió su evangelio hacia fines del siglo primero.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>II Las epístolas del NT\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Muchas epístolas del Nuevo Testamento fueron escritas antes de estos relatos del evangelio. James, el Hermano de Jesús, escribió su libro alrededor del año 45 dC, poco más de una década después de la muerte de Cristo.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Pablo escribió su epístola a los Gálatas alrededor del año 47 a 48 d. C. Estas primeras epístolas se refieren claramente a Jesús como Señor, una referencia a su deidad.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Entonces vemos que las epístolas del Nuevo Testamento fueron escritas por los apóstoles durante un período en la historia donde los testigos oculares todavía estaban vivos, por lo tanto, pudieron validar personalmente los escritos del Nuevo Testamento y evitaron que se desarrollara cualquier mito en los relatos.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Entonces, ¿cuáles son los primeros manuscritos del Nuevo Testamento y cuántos tenemos?\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>III. Los primeros manuscritos del Nuevo Testamento\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Las primeras copias de papiro circularon rápidamente por todo el Imperio Romano. Los estudiosos han descubierto alrededor de 120 de estos primeros manuscritos.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Algunos incluso tienen grandes porciones del Nuevo Testamento, mientras que otros contienen un solo libro o página. Data de aproximadamente 100 DC a aproximadamente 700 DC.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Por ejemplo, el apóstol Juan escribió el cuarto evangelio a fines del siglo primero. Se encontró un pequeño fragmento de papiro con una pequeña porción del evangelio de Juan copiado en Egipto que data de principios del siglo II.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Esto muestra cuán rápido viajaron estos evangelios. En 30 años, la gente había copiado y transportado este evangelio lejos de su origen en Éfeso. Se hicieron cientos de copias.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> Hubiera sido imposible para cualquiera recolectarlos y cambiarlos a todos. Es por eso que podemos estar seguros de que tenemos lo que originalmente fueron escritos por los apóstoles mismos.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>¿Qué tan confiable es la información registrada de los autores del Nuevo Testamento?\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>IV. Fiabilidad de los autores del Nuevo Testamento\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Testigos oculares: Muchos de los hombres que escribieron el Nuevo Testamento fueron testigos de los eventos que registraron. El apóstol Pedro dijo: \"Fuimos testigos oculares de su majestad\". El apóstol Juan dice: \"Hemos visto con nuestros ojos, hemos mirado y nuestras manos han manejado\", refiriéndose a Jesús. Juan también dice: \"Y la Palabra de Jesucristo se hizo carne y habitó entre nosotros, y vimos su gloria \".\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Algunos escépticos afirman que ninguno de los escritores del evangelio del Nuevo Testamento conoció a Jesús. El evangelio de Juan lleva todas las marcas de un verdadero relato de testigos oculares. Fue escrito claramente por un judío palestino, del siglo primero que estaba familiarizado con las costumbres judías, la religión y la geografía.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Un crítico, Sir William Ramsey investigó el evangelio de Lucas y el Libro de los Hechos. Ramsey se sorprendió al encontrar que los libros eran históricamente precisos con gran precisión y concluyó que las obras eran completamente auténticas. Como resultado, él confió en Cristo y se convirtió en un gran defensor de la fe.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Nuestra siguiente pregunta: \"¿Por qué [fueron] los 27 libros del Nuevo Testamento fueron aceptados, mientras que otros no?\"\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>V. El Canon del Nuevo Testamento: una breve historia\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Inclusión en el Canon: Se incluyó un libro en el Nuevo Testamento si: un apóstol, o un compañero cercano de un apóstol, lo escribió.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Los libros fueron escritos en el siglo primero. Los libros no se contradecirían a sí mismos ni a las escrituras del Antiguo Testamento. Serían ampliamente aceptados por la iglesia primitiva.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Reconocimiento del Canon: La primera persona que conocemos para establecer una lista completa de libros del Nuevo Testamento fue Marción alrededor del año 140 DC.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>La historia recuerda a Marción simplemente porque estableció una lista acortada de cañones, que incluye el evangelio de Lucas y las cartas de Pablo.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>En 180 dC el canon del evangelio estaba completo. El canon moratiniano del siglo II es una lista de libros considerados como autorizados en la iglesia primitiva en ese momento.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Enumera los cuatro evangelios, Hechos, las 13 cartas de Pablo, más las cartas de Juan, Judas y Apocalipsis. Al final del 2º, otros libros (como 1 Pedro y 1 Juan) también han tenido una gran aceptación.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>La iglesia oriental también adoptó hebreos y Occidente aceptó la Revelación.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Algunas personas afirman que Constantino ejerció una gran influencia en los libros elegidos para el Nuevo Testamento e incluso en su contenido.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>En ninguna parte hay indicios de que Constantino haya tratado de influir en la selección o el contenido de los libros de las Escrituras.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Hubiera sido imposible para él cambiar el contenido de libros individuales porque habían circulado entre las iglesias por más de 200 años.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>La primera persona en publicar una lista de libros del Nuevo Testamento exactamente como es hoy fue Atanasio, obispo de Alejandría, en su carta de Pascua en el año 367 d. C.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Desde entonces, pocos han cuestionado el contenido del canon, al menos hasta tiempos recientes.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>VI. Transmisión del Nuevo Testamento a lo largo de los siglos\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Algunos críticos afirman que todo lo que tenemos hoy en nuestros manuscritos y traducciones son los errores acumulados de siglos de copiar el texto con poco o nada parecido a los manuscritos originales del siglo primero.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>En el primer período de copia, algunos aún vivían (por ejemplo, Papías y Policarpo) que conocían personalmente a los autores del Nuevo Testamento.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>También quedaron algunos que fueron testigos oculares de esos eventos grabados. Esos testigos habrían señalado rápidamente cualquier error introducido por copistas posteriores.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>¿Qué pasó con los manuscritos originales? Los escritos del NT se completaron durante el siglo I d. C. Sin embargo, sus documentos de papiro frágiles originales desaparecieron en los años posteriores a su redacción, generalmente debido al desgaste.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Sin embargo, la prueba de esos documentos originales permaneció en existencia, preservando copias y manteniéndose a través de muchas generaciones posteriores que abarcaron los siglos.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>¿Son confiables los manuscritos copiados? El Nuevo Testamento ha sido copiado miles de veces, lo que naturalmente conduce a errores de los copistas, que surgen en algunos de los manuscritos. Afortunadamente, si la gran cantidad de manuscritos del Nuevo Testamento aumenta la cantidad de errores de escritura.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>También aumenta proporcionalmente los medios para corregir los errores.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>La gran cantidad de manuscritos asegura la detección de errores de escritura y también la capacidad de preservar con confianza la redacción exacta de los originales al comparar las numerosas copias de los manuscritos.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Transmisión estable del Nuevo Testamento: no se hicieron copias en un solo lugar. Ellos [no] fueron conformados deliberadamente a una sola copia maestra impuesta por la autoridad de la iglesia.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Entonces, la independencia de los escribas en diferentes ubicaciones creó múltiples líneas de transmisión de texto.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Cuando estas líneas independientes acuerdan su texto, su testimonio es del más alto valor. A través de este proceso, el texto común conserva con precisión los escritos originales de los apóstoles.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Gran cantidad de manuscritos del Nuevo Testamento: a todo esto debe agregarse la gran cantidad de copias de manuscritos disponibles.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Entre el siglo I y el siglo XVI, existen más de 24 mil manuscritos cuando se incluye griego, latín, siríaco, copto y otros idiomas antiguos.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Solo en el idioma griego, hay más de 5400 manuscritos. Esta evidencia sirve como confirmación abrumadora de la integridad de los textos del Nuevo Testamento que se conservan.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>No hay otro documento en toda la antigüedad que se acerque a lo que tenemos en la Biblia.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>VII. Traducción de los textos del Nuevo Testamento\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>¿Pueden los escritos griegos [del Nuevo Testamento]. . . ser traducido con precisión a los idiomas cotidianos de hoy? ¡Absolutamente!\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Muchas otras obras de la antigüedad clásica griega y latina son conocidas por el lector moderno solo en traducción y la fiabilidad general de tales traducciones apenas se cuestiona.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Mientras el traductor presente con precisión y precisión lo que el texto griego del Nuevo Testamento en sí mismo, aquí debería haber pocas preguntas sobre la precisión del significado que se transmite desde el texto original a nuestras traducciones modernas.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Escrituras clave:\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>2 Pedro 1:16; 1 Juan 1: 1; JUAN 1:14\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Lecturas recomendadas adicionales:\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Encuentro del Nuevo Testamento: un estudio histórico y teológico, por Walter A. Elwell\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Cómo obtuvimos la Biblia, por Neil R. Lightfoot\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Historia del Nuevo Testamento: un relato narrativo, por Ben Witherington III\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>La historia del Nuevo Testamento, por Ben Witherington III\u003C\u002Fp>","\n\nComment avons-nous eu le Nouveau Testament?","\n\nComment a-t-on obtenu le Nouveau Testament?\n\nUn guide d'étude\n\n«Nous n'avons aucune source ancienne sur Jésus et le christianisme d'observateurs «neutres». Que nous traitons avec des écrivains romains comme Tite-Live ou des écrivains juifs comme Flavius Josèphe o","\n\n우리가 새 성경을 얻은 것은 어떻게 되었을까?","\n\n우리가 새 성경을 얻는 방법은?\n\n연구 지침\n\n\"우리는 예수와 기독교에 대해 '중립적",{"id":43,"title":44,"description":45,"featured":27,"transcript":28,"subtitle":28,"playerembed":28,"category_id":6,"slug":46,"answertype":30,"created_at":47,"updated_at":48,"thumbnail":49,"embed_thumbnail":34,"embed_icon":35,"title_es":50,"description_es":51,"playerembed_es":16,"transcript_es":16,"title_fr":52,"description_fr":53,"playerembed_fr":16,"transcript_fr":16,"title_ko":54,"description_ko":55,"playerembed_ko":16,"transcript_ko":16,"question_id":16,"category_slug":8,"category_name":-1},6,"Is the Bible True?","\u003Cp>The Christian faith depends on the truth claims made in the Bible. Through investigating the writings, the trustworthiness of the authors, and consistency with sources and events outside of the Bible, we can be assured that the Bible that we have today is indeed true and reliable. The authority of the Old Testament, and most of the New Testament relies on the authority of Jesus who is the Son of God and Savior of Man.  Because of this, our examination must begin with the four Gospels, the books that relay the narrative of Jesus.\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\tThe New Testament is only reliable to the extent that the authors can be trusted. Those who challenge the credibility of the authors of the New Testament argue that they either made no claims to record historical events or that they wrote much later than the actual events with the intention of deceiving their audience. \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\tAll four authors were close and careful observers of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Matthew and John were both disciples of Jesus, which makes them eyewitnesses to the events they describe. Mark was not a disciple; but he was from Jerusalem, which would have made it likely that he was an eyewitness. There is also a strong tradition, testified to by Church father Papias in 125 AD, that Mark recorded the eyewitness observations of the disciple Peter. Luke wasn’t a disciple, and he wasn’t  an eyewitness, but he did spend time with Paul and likely had contact with other eyewitnesses. \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Scripture supports the view that the authors viewed themselves as communicating truth through the careful recording of history. At the beginning of his gospel, Luke even tells the reader how important it is to him to record the events he writes about accurately. He writes,” Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us,  just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us,  it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,  that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:1-4, All scripture quoted from the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible). He appeals to eyewitness testimony, how careful he was in gathering the information, and the assurance of truth that his account should give his audience.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\tMark writes that Jesus confirmed the truth of their message through His miracles (Mark 16:20), and John puts his own words on the same level with those delivered to the Hebrew people through Moses (John 5:46-47). John also concludes his account by affirming his authorship and trustworthiness in saying, “This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24)\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\tThe writers of the gospels clearly claimed to be recording history, but can they be trusted?  Is it possible that they wrote what they did in an attempt to deceive people? Or, could they have recorded the events inaccurately because as followers of Jesus they were biased?”\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\tThe accusation that the gospels are invented stories relies on a late dating of the original writings, also known as autographs. It takes years, more realistically centuries, for legends to develop. Most scholars of the Bible who are experts in determining when ancient texts were written propose dates between 40-60 AD for the gospels. The significance of this is that they were written within 30 years of the death of Jesus, meaning that many witnesses to the events would have still been living to either affirm or refute these claims. In his letter to the church at Corinth, which was written before the gospels, Paul writes of how the resurrected Jesus “appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive” (1 Corinthians 15:6). Even those scholars who attempt to undermine the validity of the gospels, date them around 70-100 AD. This simply doesn’t allow time for legend to develop and take hold. \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\tThe gospels, particularly Matthew, Mark, and Luke, often overlap in the details of the events they describe. The fact that they tell the same story in different ways is evidence supporting the fact that these are independently researched accounts and not the product of an attempt to partner together in intentionally deceiving followers. The fact that 10 out of the 12 disciples were put to death because of their unwillingness to change their story regarding Jesus or their belief in Him is further evidence that they were not simply lying for personal gain. It is unlikely that they all be willing to die to protect a lie.\tLike all authors, the writers had a bias. They wrote to convince people to believe in Jesus. Winfried Corduan, professor of philosophy and religion at Taylor University, notes the difference between ancient histories written to glorify kings and rulers and the objectivity of the Bible. He writes, “If the Gospel writers had intended to present nothing more than propaganda for their belief in Jesus, they might have served their case better by leaving out phases of their description of Jesus that turn off the unbelieving reader.”  They likely would have simplified difficult teaching and would have excised the portions of Scripture that cast Jesus in a seemingly negative light.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\tSince we do not have the originals, we must rely on copies of the original texts. Manuscripts are handwritten copies written in the original language. Noted Christian apologist Norm Geisler notes that compared  to other ancient works, the New Testament is preserved in an astounding number of “partial and complete manuscript portions that were copied by hand from the second (possibly even the first) through the fifteenth centuries.” The New Testament is “the most accurately copied book from the ancient world.”  There are over 5,800 New Testament manuscripts, and the number continues to rise. In comparison, there are 251 surviving manuscripts of Caesar’s Gallic Wars. The large number of manuscripts makes it possible to more accurately determine what the original said. Mistakes in the copies, or variants, can be more readily distinguished through comparison.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The dating of the manuscripts also lends support to the reliability of the New Testament record. For most ancient manuscripts, including Caesar’s Gallic Wars, the earliest manuscripts are dated around 1,000 years after the originals. The earliest New Testament manuscript, a fragment from John, is dated at around 50 years after the original; and there is a complete New Testament manuscript dated only 250 years after the original. More newly discovered manuscripts will likely push this dating back even further. These early dates decrease the likelihood of copyist errors, and reveal that eyewitnesses to the events would have still been living at the time that manuscripts were being circulated.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The manuscripts allow us to confirm the internal consistency of the Bible, and other histories of the time period further demonstrate its historical accuracy. Among extra-biblical sources, Tacitus, Josephus, and the Talmud provide some of the most interesting details from sources outside the Bible.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Cornelius Tacitus (ca. AD 55-120) was known as the “greatest historian” of ancient Rome. His work Annals confirms the fact that Christians were named for Christ, that Jesus was put to death by Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, that the doctrine of Christianity was carried to Rome, and that Christians were arrested and tortured. He also writes of a “superstition” that broke out again after Jesus’ death, perhaps a reference to the resurrection.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>A Jewish historian writing for the Romans, Flavius Josephus (ca. AD 37-97), wrote earlier than Tacitus; but some of the information about Jesus in his work  Antiquities is disputed. Some of his words appear to be an interpolation (something introduced or added to the original text) by Christians. It is believed that most of the text is genuine, and historians agree that he wrote of Jesus that James was His brother, that Pilate condemned Him to be crucified, that He was a wise man who was called messiah, and that His disciples proclaimed His teachings and believed in His resurrection.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The Talmud is a collection of Jewish writings, which were initially preserved by oral tradition and recorded around 200 AD. Interestingly, the negative portrayal of Jesus found in the Talmud supports the gospel accounts. It is said that Jesus was guilty of “sorcery” and that He led His followers into “apostasy.” The apostasy may refer to Jesus’ acceptance of worship as God. The accusation of sorcery, while not a recognition of miracles as a confirmation of Jesus’ divinity, reveals that He performed supernatural acts that required an explanation. \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>In summary, by applying the same sort of investigation that any historical account would be expected to withstand, we find that the Bible is a trustworthy account of real events. The authors were reliable witnesses, the documents were well-preserved, and the facts that they relay are consistent with other documents.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>SUGGESTED RESOURCES:\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Those who would like to read more on this topic are encouraged to check out:\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>ONLINE RESOURCES:\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Bible.org - Is the Bible Reliable? (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fbible.org\u002Farticle\u002Fbible-reliable%E2%80%94seven-questions\">https:\u002F\u002Fbible.org\u002Farticle\u002Fbible-reliable%E2%80%94seven-questions\u003C\u002Fa>)\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>LeeStrobel.com - Investigating Faith (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.leestrobel.com\u002Fchannels\u002FBible.php\">http:\u002F\u002Fwww.leestrobel.com\u002Fchannels\u002FBible.php\u003C\u002Fa>)\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>GotQuestions.org - Is the Bible True? (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.gotquestions.org\u002Fis-the-Bible-true.html\">http:\u002F\u002Fwww.gotquestions.org\u002Fis-the-Bible-true.html\u003C\u002Fa>)\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>PRINT RESOURCES:\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Winfried Corduan - No Doubt about It: The Case for Christianity. (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Famzn.com\u002F0805416471\">http:\u002F\u002Famzn.com\u002F0805416471\u003C\u002Fa>)\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Norman Geisler - Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Famzn.com\u002F0801021510\">http:\u002F\u002Famzn.com\u002F0801021510\u003C\u002Fa>)\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Gary Habermas - The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Famzn.com\u002F0899007325\">http:\u002F\u002Famzn.com\u002F0899007325\u003C\u002Fa>)\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Dean Hardy - Stand Your Ground: An Introductory Text for Apologetics Students. (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Famzn.com\u002FB005KT3HTC\">http:\u002F\u002Famzn.com\u002FB005KT3HTC\u003C\u002Fa>)\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Lee Strobel - The Case for Christ. (\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Famzn.com\u002FB000FC2KEM\">http:\u002F\u002Famzn.com\u002FB000FC2KEM\u003C\u002Fa>)\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>","is-the-bible-true","2019-12-19T17:32:01.210Z","2023-08-03T05:34:32.098Z","https:\u002F\u002Fs3.amazonaws.com\u002Ftruelife1\u002Ficons\u002F114\u002Fanswerthumbnails\u002Ffull.jpg","¿ES LA BIBLIA VERDADERA?","\u003Cp>La fe cristiana depende de las afirmaciones de verdad hechas en la Biblia. A través de la investigación de los escritos, la confiabilidad de los autores y la coherencia con las fuentes y eventos fuera de la Biblia, podemos estar seguros de que la Biblia que tenemos hoy es verdaderamente verdadera y confiable. La autoridad del Antiguo Testamento, y la mayor parte del Nuevo Testamento se basa en la autoridad de Jesús, que es el Hijo de Dios y Salvador del Hombre. Debido a esto, nuestro examen debe comenzar con los cuatro Evangelios, los libros que transmiten la narrativa de Jesús.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>El Nuevo Testamento solo es confiable en la medida en que se puede confiar en los autores. Quienes cuestionan la credibilidad de los autores del Nuevo Testamento argumentan que no hicieron ningún reclamo para registrar eventos históricos o que escribieron mucho más tarde que los eventos reales con la intención de engañar a su audiencia.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Los cuatro autores fueron observadores cercanos y cuidadosos de la vida, muerte y resurrección de Jesús. Mateo y Juan fueron discípulos de Jesús, lo que los convierte en testigos presenciales de los eventos que describen. Marcos no era un discípulo; pero él era de Jerusalén, lo que habría hecho probable que fuera un testigo ocular. También hay una fuerte tradición, atestiguada por el padre de la Iglesia Papias en 125 DC, que Mark registró las observaciones de testigos oculares del discípulo Pedro. Luke no era un discípulo, y no era un testigo ocular, pero sí pasó tiempo con Paul y probablemente tuvo contacto con otros testigos.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Las Escrituras apoyan la opinión de que los autores se veían a sí mismos como comunicando la verdad a través del registro cuidadoso de la historia. Al comienzo de su evangelio, Lucas incluso le dice al lector lo importante que es para él registrar los eventos sobre los que escribe con precisión. Él escribe: \"En la medida en que muchos se han comprometido a compilar una narración de las cosas que se han logrado entre nosotros, así como aquellos que desde el principio fueron testigos oculares y ministros de la palabra nos los entregaron, también me pareció bien, después de haber seguido todas las cosas de cerca durante algún tiempo, para escribir una cuenta ordenada para usted, el más excelente Theophilus, para que tenga certeza sobre las cosas que le han enseñado ”(Lucas 1: 1-4, Todas las escrituras citadas del Estándar Inglés Versión (ESV) de la Biblia). Hace un llamamiento al testimonio de testigos oculares, lo cuidadoso que fue al recopilar la información y la seguridad de la verdad que su cuenta debe dar a su audiencia.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Marcos escribe que Jesús confirmó la verdad de su mensaje a través de Sus milagros (Marcos 16:20), y Juan pone sus propias palabras al mismo nivel que las que se le entregaron al pueblo hebreo a través de Moisés (Juan 5: 46-47). John también concluye su relato afirmando su autoría y confiabilidad al decir: \"Este es el discípulo que da testimonio de estas cosas, y que ha escrito estas cosas, y sabemos que su testimonio es verdadero\" (Juan 21:24)\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Los escritores de los evangelios claramente afirmaron estar registrando la historia, pero ¿se puede confiar en ellos? ¿Es posible que escribieran lo que hicieron en un intento de engañar a la gente? ¿O podrían haber registrado los eventos de manera inexacta porque, como seguidores de Jesús, fueron parcializados?\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>La acusación de que los evangelios son historias inventadas se basa en una datación tardía de los escritos originales, también conocidos como autógrafos. Se necesitan años, siglos más realistas, para que se desarrollen las leyendas. La mayoría de los estudiosos de la Biblia que son expertos en determinar cuándo se escribieron los textos antiguos proponen fechas entre los años 40-60 dC para los evangelios. El significado de esto es que fueron escritos dentro de los 30 años posteriores a la muerte de Jesús, lo que significa que muchos testigos de los eventos aún habrían vivido para afirmar o refutar estas afirmaciones. En su carta a la iglesia en Corinto, que fue escrita antes de los evangelios, Pablo escribe cómo Jesús resucitado \"se apareció a más de quinientos hermanos a la vez, la mayoría de los cuales todavía están vivos\" (1 Corintios 15: 6). Incluso aquellos eruditos que intentan socavar la validez de los evangelios, fechan alrededor de 70-100 DC. Esto simplemente no deja tiempo para que la leyenda se desarrolle y se arraigue.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Los evangelios, particularmente Mateo, Marcos y Lucas, a menudo se superponen en los detalles de los eventos que describen. El hecho de que cuenten la misma historia de diferentes maneras es evidencia que respalda el hecho de que estos son relatos investigados de forma independiente y no el producto de un intento de asociarse para engañar intencionalmente a los seguidores. El hecho de que 10 de los 12 discípulos fueron ejecutados debido a su falta de voluntad para cambiar su historia con respecto a Jesús o su creencia en Él es una prueba más de que no estaban simplemente mintiendo para beneficio personal. Es poco probable que todos estén dispuestos a morir para proteger una mentira. Como todos los autores, los escritores tenían un sesgo. Escribieron para convencer a la gente de creer en Jesús. Winfried Corduan, profesor de filosofía y religión en la Universidad de Taylor, observa la diferencia entre las historias antiguas escritas para glorificar a reyes y gobernantes y la objetividad de la Biblia. Él escribe: \"Si los escritores del Evangelio hubieran tenido la intención de presentar nada más que propaganda por su creencia en Jesús, podrían haber servido mejor a su caso al dejar de lado las fases de su descripción de Jesús que apagan al lector incrédulo\". simplificó la enseñanza difícil y habría eliminado las porciones de las Escrituras que arrojaban a Jesús en una luz aparentemente negativa.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Como no tenemos los originales, debemos confiar en las copias de los textos originales. Los manuscritos son copias manuscritas escritas en el idioma original. El destacado apologista cristiano Norm Geisler señala que, en comparación con otras obras antiguas, el Nuevo Testamento se conserva en un sorprendente número de \"porciones de manuscritos parciales y completas que se copiaron a mano desde el segundo (posiblemente incluso el primero) hasta los siglos XV\". El Nuevo Testamento es \"el libro copiado con mayor precisión del mundo antiguo\". Hay más de 5.800 manuscritos del Nuevo Testamento, y el número sigue aumentando. En comparación, hay 251 manuscritos sobrevivientes de las Guerras Gálicas de César. La gran cantidad de manuscritos permite determinar con mayor precisión lo que dice el original. Los errores en las copias, o variantes, se pueden distinguir más fácilmente a través de la comparación.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>La datación de los manuscritos también respalda la confiabilidad del registro del Nuevo Testamento. Para la mayoría de los manuscritos antiguos, incluidas las Guerras Gálicas de César, los primeros manuscritos datan de aproximadamente 1,000 años después de los originales. El primer manuscrito del Nuevo Testamento, un fragmento de John, data de unos 50 años después del original; y hay un manuscrito completo del Nuevo Testamento fechado solo 250 años después del original. Los manuscritos más recientemente descubiertos probablemente retrasarán aún más esta datación. Estas primeras fechas disminuyen la probabilidad de errores de los copistas y revelan que los testigos oculares de los eventos aún habrían estado viviendo en el momento en que circulaban los manuscritos.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Los manuscritos nos permiten confirmar la consistencia interna de la Biblia, y otras historias del período de tiempo demuestran aún más su precisión histórica. Entre las fuentes extrabíblicas, Tácito, Josefo y el Talmud proporcionan algunos de los detalles más interesantes de fuentes externas a la Biblia.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Cornelio Tácito (ca. 55-120 d. C.) era conocido como el \"mayor historiador\" de la antigua Roma. Su trabajo Annals confirma el hecho de que los cristianos fueron nombrados por Cristo, que Pilato mató a Jesús durante el reinado de Tiberio, que la doctrina del cristianismo fue llevada a Roma, y que los cristianos fueron arrestados y torturados. También escribe sobre una \"superstición\" que estalló nuevamente después de la muerte de Jesús, tal vez una referencia a la resurrección.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Un historiador judío que escribe para los romanos, Flavio Josefo (ca. 37-97 d. C.), escribió antes que Tácito; pero parte de la información sobre Jesús en su obra Antigüedades está en disputa. Algunas de sus palabras parecen ser una interpolación (algo introducido o agregado al texto original) por los cristianos. Se cree que la mayor parte del texto es genuino, y los historiadores coinciden en que escribió acerca de Jesús que Jacobo era su hermano, que Pilato lo condenó a ser crucificado, que era un hombre sabio que se llamaba mesías y que sus discípulos proclamaron que era su hermano. enseñanzas y creía en su resurrección.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>El Talmud es una colección de escritos judíos, que inicialmente fueron preservados por la tradición oral y registrados alrededor del año 200 DC. Curiosamente, la representación negativa de Jesús que se encuentra en el Talmud respalda los relatos del Evangelio. Se dice que Jesús era culpable de \"brujería\" y que llevó a sus seguidores a la \"apostasía\". La apostasía puede referirse a la aceptación de Jesús de la adoración como Dios. La acusación de brujería, aunque no es un reconocimiento de los milagros como una confirmación de la divinidad de Jesús, revela que realizó actos sobrenaturales que requerían una explicación.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>En resumen, al aplicar el mismo tipo de investigación que se esperaría que cualquier relato histórico resistiera, encontramos que la Biblia es un relato confiable de eventos reales. Los autores fueron testigos confiables, los documentos estaban bien conservados y los hechos que transmiten son consistentes con otros documentos.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>RECURSOS SUGERIDOS:\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Se recomienda a quienes deseen leer más sobre este tema que echen un vistazo:\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>RECURSOS EN LÍNEA:\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Bible.org - Is the Bible Reliable? (https:\u002F\u002Fbible.org\u002Farticle\u002Fbible-reliable%E2%80%94seven-questions)\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>LeeStrobel.com - Investigating Faith (http:\u002F\u002Fwww.leestrobel.com\u002Fchannels\u002FBible.php)\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>GotQuestions.org - Is the Bible True? (http:\u002F\u002Fwww.gotquestions.org\u002Fis-the-Bible-true.html)\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Winfried Corduan - No Doubt about It: The Case for Christianity. (http:\u002F\u002Famzn.com\u002F0805416471)\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Norman Geisler - Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (http:\u002F\u002Famzn.com\u002F0801021510)\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Gary Habermas - The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. (http:\u002F\u002Famzn.com\u002F0899007325)\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Dean Hardy - Stand Your Ground: An Introductory Text for Apologetics Students. (http:\u002F\u002Famzn.com\u002FB005KT3HTC)\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Lee Strobel - The Case for Christ. (http:\u002F\u002Famzn.com\u002FB000FC2KEM)\u003C\u002Fp>","\n\nLa Bible est-elle vraie?","\n\n\u003Cp>La foi chrétienne dépend des affirmations de vérité faites dans la Bible. En enquêtant sur les écrits, la fiabilité des auteurs et la cohérence avec les sources et les événements en dehors de la Bible, nous pouvons être assurés que la Bible que nous avons aujourd'hui est","\n\n성경이 진실인가요?","\n\n\u003Cp>기독교는 성경의 진실 주장에 의존한다. 작품 파악, 저자들의 신뢰성, 외부 자료",{"id":57,"title":58,"description":59,"featured":27,"transcript":28,"subtitle":28,"playerembed":28,"category_id":6,"slug":60,"answertype":30,"created_at":61,"updated_at":62,"thumbnail":63,"embed_thumbnail":34,"embed_icon":35,"title_es":64,"description_es":65,"playerembed_es":16,"transcript_es":16,"title_fr":66,"description_fr":16,"playerembed_fr":16,"transcript_fr":16,"title_ko":67,"description_ko":16,"playerembed_ko":16,"transcript_ko":16,"question_id":68,"category_slug":8,"category_name":-1},24,"Why Believe the Bible?","\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\">Why Believe the Bible?\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\">By Jeremy Lyon\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\"> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\"> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>       The Bible is the most widely read book in the history of the world. It has been translated, either in part or in its entirety, into over 2,000 languages. Throughout history, people have been willing to suffer and even die for its content. Today, even though the Bible still retains great popularity, more and more people are questioning the Bible. Is the Bible \u003Cem>really\u003C\u002Fem> God’s Word or just a man-made book? Hasn’t the Bible been proven wrong? What about other religious books? Why believe the Bible? These are legitimate questions that deserve reasonable answers. Christians are called to have reasonable answers for those who ask about the Christian faith (1 Peter 3:15). In other words, Christians are called to know not only \u003Cem>what \u003C\u002Fem>they believe, but \u003Cem>why\u003C\u002Fem> they believe. Christians must not leave questions that people have unanswered as though the historic Christian faith does not have legitimate answers. So why believe the Bible? Is it reasonable to believe that the Bible is indeed God’s Word and completely reliable?\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\">\u003Cspan>The Bible Claims to be the Word of God \u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>       First, in answering these questions one must ask, “What does the Bible claim about itself?” Two books in the Old Testament state that the Ten Commandments came directly from God’s finger (Exodus 31:18; Deuteronomy 5:22). Exodus 24:4 states that “Moses wrote all the words of the LORD.”\u003Ca rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002FTrueLife%20Article\u002F5-Why%20Believe%20the%20Bible?#_edn1\">[1]\u003C\u002Fa> In similar manner, the prophets of the Old Testament state in their writings over 5,000 times, “Thus says the LORD.” In other words, these were God’s words, not theirs. The New Testament states in 2 Timothy 3:16 that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” Elsewhere, 2 Peter 1:21 also says that “no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”\u003Ca rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002FTrueLife%20Article\u002F5-Why%20Believe%20the%20Bible?#_edn2\">[2]\u003C\u002Fa> So these passages claim that what was written in the Bible were not the words of mere men, but came from God Himself. With claims like this it is no wonder that the Bible has drawn such a strong response from so many people. But, the Bible is not necessarily \u003Cem>God’s \u003C\u002Fem>Word simply because it claims to be. So, is the Bible really \u003Cem>God’s \u003C\u002Fem>Word and is it reliable?\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\"> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\">Ancient Manuscript Evidence Confirms the Original Words\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\">of the Bible Have Been Preserved\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>       The Old Testament was written during a thousand year period from 1450 BC to 400 BC. Over the centuries scribes would meticulously make copies of the Old Testament as they counted the verses, words, and letters of the Law and other parts of Scripture to ensure the faithful transmission of the biblical text. As the older manuscripts began to wear out they would make new copies and dispose of the older copies. In fact, the newer copies were, in some respects, even \u003Cem>preferred\u003C\u002Fem> over the older copies which were more subject to wear and tear. Because of this, the oldest available copies of Old Testament manuscripts, which the modern Bible is based on, are dated to around AD 1000.\u003Ca rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002FTrueLife%20Article\u002F5-Why%20Believe%20the%20Bible?#_edn3\">[3]\u003C\u002Fa> This leads to an important question. Do the Hebrew manuscripts dated around AD 1000, along with the modern texts we now possess, reliably preserve the original manuscripts? The greatest archaeological discovery of the twentieth century would shed great light on this question.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>       The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the Qumran caves on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea between 1947 and 1956. These Scrolls (complete texts or fragments) contain every book of the Old Testament except for the book of Esther. The Dead Sea Scrolls are dated between 200 BC and AD 70. Carbon-14 dating confirms the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls, along with evidence from archaeology, paleography, and internal allusions (references) within the Scrolls. Previously, the earliest Old Testament manuscripts available dated to around AD 900. The Dead Sea Scrolls discovery takes the dating of available Old Testament manuscripts back 1,000 years! When the scrolls were examined, it was discovered that the scribes were accurate with great precision. Many of the biblical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls are remarkably almost identical to the Hebrew Masoretic Text (which the modern Bible is based) with the exception of a few minor differences (such as a few spelling details). The Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate the reliability and faithful transmission of the Old Testament text. In other words, we can be assured that what we have \u003Cem>now\u003C\u002Fem> is what was \u003Cem>originally\u003C\u002Fem> written. The Old Testament was well preserved and accurately handed down to us today.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>       The New Testament was written between AD 40 – 100. There are over 5,000 ancient manuscripts or portions of manuscripts of the New Testament. The earliest portions of these New Testament manuscripts are dated to within mere \u003Cem>decades \u003C\u002Fem>of the original manuscripts. For example, one of the most amazing finds is the John Rylands fragment (P52), which is 3 ½ by 2 ½ inches, containing words from John 18:31-33, 37-38. This papyrus fragment was discovered in Egypt and is dated to around AD 125 giving convincing evidence of early circulation of the Gospel of John. The John Rylands Papyrus dates to within mere decades, or even closer, to the original manuscript. This may not sound so impressive until you compare these numbers with other ancient documents. For example, there are only a handful of copies of the historical writings of Herodotus, with the earliest copy dated at 1,300 years after the original. Only a handful of copies exist of Caesar’s writings, with the earliest of those copies dating to 900 years after the original.\u003Ca rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002FTrueLife%20Article\u002F5-Why%20Believe%20the%20Bible?#_edn4\">[4]\u003C\u002Fa>No serious scholar would question the authenticity of Herodotus or Caesar. Yet there are over 5,000 manuscripts or portions of manuscripts of the New Testament, with some going all the way back to within mere \u003Cem>decades\u003C\u002Fem> of the originals. Thus, one can have full confidence that what we have now recorded in the New Testament is what was originally written. The superiority of the New Testament as a reliable historical document is demonstrated in the manuscript evidence.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\"> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\">Reliable Eye-Witness Testimony Confirms the History of the Bible\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>       There are those who simply will not believe in the historical events (including the resurrection) recorded in the New Testament unless they can be proven scientifically. However, since the N.T. records \u003Cem>historical\u003C\u002Fem> events, one cannot use the scientific method to prove it. You cannot observe, measure, or repeat the historical events in question here. Rather, one must approach the question of the history recorded in the New Testament as it is done in a court of law. One must find out if there is any reliable eye-witness testimony to verify the claims. This is exactly what the Bible has! The Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eye-witnesses.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>       Regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists, Sir William Ramsay was trained in mid 19th century German historical skepticism and so did not believe that the N.T. documents were historically reliable. However, his archaeological investigations drove him to see that his skepticism was unwarranted. He had a profound change of attitude. Speaking of Luke (the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts), Ramsay stated: “Luke is a historian of the first rank…he should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”\u003Ca rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002FTrueLife%20Article\u002F5-Why%20Believe%20the%20Bible?#_edn5\">[5]\u003C\u002Fa> Luke himself records that what he wrote came directly from eye-witnesses of Christ (Luke 1:1-4). Peter made it clear that they were not following myths, but that they recorded actual events which transpired in history. Peter further attests “we were eye-witnesses of His majesty” (2 Peter 1:16). John also affirms “that which we have seen and heard we declare to you” (1 John 1:1-3). Paul states that there were hundreds of eye-witnesses of the resurrection still living at the time he wrote his first letter to the Corinthians during the first century (\u003Cem>see \u003C\u002Fem>1 Corinthians 15:3-8). In other words, Paul was stating that you could go and ask any one of these people and they could confirm the claims of the apostles. If the biblical writers were making claims about Christ that were not true, then certainly someone who witnessed the life of Jesus would have spoken up against these claims. However, there are no external historical documents from that time period contrary to the eye-witness testimony of the New Testament. Upon investigation, it is demonstrated with great confidence that the New Testament is reliable history.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\"> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\">Archaeology Confirms the History of the Bible\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>       Christianity is a historic faith. That is, it is rooted in history. Thus, if the events actually transpired in history as the Bible records, then there should be archaeological evidence to support the claims of the Bible. One should be able to literally go dig up the past and see if it confirms Scripture. This is exactly what one finds when exploring the archaeological artifacts. Also, if one can “dig up” confirmation of the biblical history, then it also follows that one \u003Cem>could\u003C\u002Fem> “dig up” evidence which contradicts the history recorded in the Bible if the biblical record was not true in certain claims. No such archaeological evidence, however, contradicts the biblical record of history. The fact is that the archaeological evidence repeatedly confirms the historical details given in Scripture. A few examples are in order at this point.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>       \u003Cem>The Dead Sea Scrolls\u003C\u002Fem> – The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls between 1947 and 1956 has already been introduced and is clearly one of the greatest archaeological finds as they give invaluable confirmation to the reliability of the text of the Old Testament.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>       \u003Cem>The Gilgamesh Epic Cuneiform Tablets\u003C\u002Fem> – In the mid-19th \u003C\u002Fspan>century, twelve cuneiform tablets known as The Gilgamesh Epic were discovered in the ancient Babylonian city of Nineveh. The Gilgamesh Epic gives the Babylonian account of a global flood in which Utnapishtim is the hero of the flood account. There are striking similarities between the biblical flood account found in the Book of Genesis and the flood account in the Gilgamesh Epic. There are also vast differences between the two accounts which demonstrate the superiority of the Genesis account.\u003Cspan>\u003Ca rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002FTrueLife%20Article\u002F5-Why%20Believe%20the%20Bible?#_edn6\">[6]\u003C\u002Fa> If there was a global Flood and all people are descendants of Noah and his sons as the Bible teaches, then one would expect to find flood traditions in different cultures all over the world. In fact, there are over 200 flood traditions in cultures all over the world. Flood traditions in cultures all over the world, including the amazing Gilgamesh Epic tablets, support the biblical account of a global Flood.\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>\u003Cem>       The Code of Hammurabi \u003C\u002Fem>– Historians were skeptical that Moses wrote the Law around 1450 BC believing that writing had not developed at that time. Then archaeologists discovered the Code of Hammurabi, on a large stele over seven feet tall. This code was written centuries before Moses around 1750 BC. Other law codes predate the time of Moses as well showing that the writing of the Law was not too early for the time of Moses.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>       \u003Cem>The\u003C\u002Fem> \u003Cem>Hittite\u003C\u002Fem>\u003Cem> City\u003C\u002Fem>\u003Cem> Hattusha\u003C\u002Fem> – The Bible makes reference to the Hittite people in the Book of Genesis. Scholars found no evidence of the Hittites outside of the Old Testament and concluded that the Old Testament was in error. Then archaeologists began excavating in the early twentieth century and discovered the large Hittite capital, Hattusha, in modern Turkey. Thousands of clay cuneiform tablets were found confirming the Hittite people.\u003Ca rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002FTrueLife%20Article\u002F5-Why%20Believe%20the%20Bible?#_edn7\">[7]\u003C\u002Fa>Now the Hittites, whose existence was doubted by historians previously, are well documented by thousands of clay tablets confirming the biblical historical details.\u003Ca rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002FTrueLife%20Article\u002F5-Why%20Believe%20the%20Bible?#_edn8\">[8]\u003C\u002Fa>  \u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>\u003Cem>       Sargon’s Palace and Inscription \u003C\u002Fem>– Isaiah 20:1 describes Sargon, king of Assyria, capturing Ashdod. Skeptics assumed the Bible was in error because no other ancient records mentioned Sargon. Then in the mid-19th century Sargon’s palace was discovered in Khorsabad a few miles northeast of Nineveh and an inscription was also found in reference to the conquest of Ashdod, confirming the biblical historical details.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>\u003Cem>       Belshazzar, Co-Ruler of Babylon – \u003C\u002Fem>The Book of Daniel alone describes King Belshazzar as the ruler at the time of the fall of Babylon while secular records described Nabonidus as the king at that time. Then archaeologists discovered documents that showed Nabonidus spent the last days of his reign outside of Babylon and had his son Belshazzar co-ruler of Babylon, confirming the biblical testimony.\u003Ca rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002FTrueLife%20Article\u002F5-Why%20Believe%20the%20Bible?#_edn9\">[9]\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>\u003Cem>       John Rylands Papyrus \u003C\u002Fem>– The amazing discovery of the John Rylands papyrus (P52) containing verses from the Gospel of John has already been introduced. This papyrus is dated to around AD 125, within decades of the original manuscript showing the early circulation of this Gospel in Egypt.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>       Numerous more archaeological discoveries could be cited which give witness to the reliability of the Old Testament. Furthermore, the New Testament has been verified as a reliable historical document time and again by numerous archaeological finds as the renowned archaeologist William Ramsay attested to. The cited examples above are just a fraction of the overwhelming archaeological evidence confirming the biblical historical details.   \u003Cem> \u003C\u002Fem>      \u003Cem> \u003C\u002Fem> \u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\"> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\">\u003Cspan>Fulfilled Prophecies Confirm the Divine Origin of the Bible \u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>       Fulfilled prophecy separates the Bible from every other book as no other religious texts in the world can lay claim to fulfilled prophecy. Hundreds of prophecies are given in the Old Testament and not a single one has failed. For example, in Isaiah 44:18-45:13, the prophet Isaiah prophesied that God would raise up a ruler named Cyrus to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. A few hundred years later Cyrus, king of Persia, decreed to have the city of Jerusalem rebuilt. In Daniel 7:6 and 8:21-22, Daniel prophesied the swift rise of the Greek empire under Alexander the Great and the division of his empire into four parts after his death. Over 200 years later, Alexander the Great conquered much of the world. After his death the empire was divided among his generals into four parts, though, as Daniel foretold, none ruled with the strength of Alexander.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>       The Old Testament also makes numerous prophecies concerning the Messiah’s first coming and all were fulfilled. For example, Isaiah 7:14 predicts that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Some 700 years later, the Gospel writer Matthew records that this prophecy was fulfilled in the virgin birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:18-23). The prophet Micah foretold in Micah 5:2 that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Over 700 years later, Matthew again records the fulfillment of this prophecy in Jesus, who was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1-6).\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>       In Isaiah 53 the prophet Isaiah foretold of the Messiah as the Suffering Servant who makes atonement for lost humanity. All four Gospels record the substitutionary death on the cross by Jesus to atone for the sins of the world. Another interesting messianic text is Psalm 22. When Jesus was dying on the cross He cried out with a loud voice quoting Psalm 22:1, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” Psalm 22:7-8 states, “All those who see Me ridicule Me; they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying ‘He trusted in the LORD, let Him rescue Him; let Him deliver Him, since He delights in Him.’” Interestingly, this is what the chief priests, scribes, and elders said about Jesus while He was on the cross (Matthew 27:39-43). The Psalm continues in verses 14-15 describing the suffering and thirst of the Messiah and the Gospels record that Jesus stated “I thirst” while on the cross, in fulfillment of Psalm 22 (John 19:28). Psalm 22:16-18 states “they pierced My hands and My feet; I can count all My bones. They look and stare at Me. They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.” Matthew 27:35 records that the soldiers fulfilled this prophecy. Lastly, the phrase in verse 16, “they pierced My hands and My feet” was written 1,000 years before Christ by a man who had never witnessed a crucifixion because crucifixion had not yet been invented.\u003Ca rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002FTrueLife%20Article\u002F5-Why%20Believe%20the%20Bible?#_edn10\">[10]\u003C\u002Fa>      \u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>       Many predictions in the Bible are adequately separated by time from their fulfillment. These predictions are precise enough in detail as to render improbable any theory of chance or being merely man-made ideas. There are a sufficient number of these prophecies so as to render highly probable an advanced knowledge that could only come from a source \u003Cem>outside\u003C\u002Fem> of man. God is the most likely explanation of such a source of information. One cannot simply write off the multitude of fulfilled prophecies in Scripture. Fulfilled prophecies in the Bible are further evidence of the divine origin and reliability of the Bible.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\"> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\">The Consistent Message Confirms the Divine Origin of the Bible\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>       The consistency of the biblical record is astonishing when a few basic observations are made. The Bible was written in three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) on three different continents (Africa, Asia, and Europe). The Bible was written by over 40 different authors, most of whom never met one another. The Bible was written over a 1500 year period (ca. 1450 BC – AD 100). Yet, the Bible tells one singularly woven together story. \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\"> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\">Conclusion: God’s Word is True\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>       So why believe the Bible? The Bible claims to be the Word of God. The reliability of the biblical claims is demonstrated by numerous evidences. The amazing manuscript evidence for the Old and New Testament confirms that the original words of the Bible have been faithfully preserved. The reliable eye-witness testimony of the New Testament confirms the historical accounts recorded in the New Testament. The historical details of the Bible are confirmed repeatedly by archaeology. The vast number of prophecies fulfilled confirms the divine origin of the Bible. Also, the amazing consistency of the Bible’s message over the centuries by numerous authors attests to its divine origin. To believe that the Bible is merely a man-made book would be an even greater miracle itself than the very miracles the Bible proclaims. When one examines the nature of the Bible, the conclusion is that no mere men could pull this off. It is most reasonable to conclude that there must be a God behind the biblical text who has revealed Himself to us. To reject the divine origin and reliability of the Bible seems to stretch all credulity. Far from being a “blind faith,” belief in the Bible is a \u003Cem>reasonable\u003C\u002Fem> faith based on evidence.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\">\u003Cstrong> \u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\">\u003Cstrong> \u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\">\u003Cstrong> \u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\">End Notes\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Chr>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>\u003Ca rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002FTrueLife%20Article\u002F5-Why%20Believe%20the%20Bible?#_ednref1\">[1]\u003C\u002Fa> All Scripture quotations from NKJV unless otherwise noted.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>\u003Ca rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002FTrueLife%20Article\u002F5-Why%20Believe%20the%20Bible?#_ednref2\">[2]\u003C\u002Fa> NASB\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>\u003Ca rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002FTrueLife%20Article\u002F5-Why%20Believe%20the%20Bible?#_ednref3\">[3]\u003C\u002Fa> The two major Hebrew manuscripts are known as the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex. The Aleppo Codex, from Syria, is dated around AD 930. The Aleppo Codex was the authoritative text for the Old Testament and large portions were destroyed in 1947 when Arabs rioted against the Jews. Today, the oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible is the Leningrad Codex which was written in Cairo around AD 1010. These two manuscripts are regarded as the models of a form of Hebrew text known today as the Masoretic Text. The Leningrad Codex underlies most editions of the modern Hebrew Bible. The Cairo Codex is a manuscript of the Former and Latter Prophets scribed by Moses ben Asher around AD 900 and is currently held in Cairo. The Leningrad Codex of the Prophets was written around AD 916 and includes the Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and The Twelve). \u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>\u003Ca rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002FTrueLife%20Article\u002F5-Why%20Believe%20the%20Bible?#_ednref4\">[4]\u003C\u002Fa> F.F. Bruce, \u003Cem>The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?\u003C\u002Fem>, sixth edition,\u003Cem>\u003C\u002Fem>(Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1981) p. 11.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>\u003Ca rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002FTrueLife%20Article\u002F5-Why%20Believe%20the%20Bible?#_ednref5\">[5]\u003C\u002Fa> Sir William Ramsay, \u003Cem>The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament\u003C\u002Fem>, (1915) cited in F.F. Bruce, \u003Cem>The New Testament Documents\u003C\u002Fem>, pp. 91-92.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>\u003Ca rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002FTrueLife%20Article\u002F5-Why%20Believe%20the%20Bible?#_ednref6\">[6]\u003C\u002Fa> Alexander Heidel, \u003Cem>The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels \u003C\u002Fem>(Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1946, 1949).\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>\u003Ca rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002FTrueLife%20Article\u002F5-Why%20Believe%20the%20Bible?#_ednref7\">[7]\u003C\u002Fa> Alfred J. Hoerth, Gerald L. Mattingly, and Edwin M. Yamauchi, \u003Cem>Peoples of the Old Testament World\u003C\u002Fem> (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1994) pp. 134-135.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>\u003Ca rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002FTrueLife%20Article\u002F5-Why%20Believe%20the%20Bible?#_ednref8\">[8]\u003C\u002Fa> Walter C. Kaiser Jr., \u003Cem>The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant?\u003C\u002Fem>(Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001) p. 102.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>\u003Ca rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002FTrueLife%20Article\u002F5-Why%20Believe%20the%20Bible?#_ednref9\">[9]\u003C\u002Fa> Ibid., p. 99.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>\u003Ca rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002FTrueLife%20Article\u002F5-Why%20Believe%20the%20Bible?#_ednref10\">[10]\u003C\u002Fa> Voddie Baucham, Jr., \u003Cem>The Ever-Loving Truth\u003C\u002Fem> (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004) p. 146.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>","why-believe-the-bible","2019-12-19T17:40:51.425Z","2026-03-06T02:49:42.464Z","https:\u002F\u002Fs3.amazonaws.com\u002Ftruelife1\u002Ficons\u002F15\u002Fanswerthumbnails\u002Ffull.jpg","\n\n¿Por qué creer en la Biblia?","\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\">¿Por qué creer en la Biblia?\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\">Por Jeremy Lyon\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\"> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\"> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>       La Biblia es el libro más leído en la historia del mundo. Ha sido traducida, ya sea en parte o en su totalidad, a más de 2.000 idiomas. A lo largo de la historia, las personas han estado dispuestas a sufrir e incluso morir por su contenido. Hoy en día, aunque la Biblia aún conserva gran popularidad, cada vez más personas cuestionan la Biblia. ¿Es la Biblia \u003Cem>realmente\u003C\u002Fem> la Palabra de Dios o solo un libro hecho por el hombre? ¿No se ha demostrado que la Biblia está equivocada? ¿Qué pasa con otros libros religiosos? ¿Por qué creer en la Biblia? Estas son preguntas legítimas que merecen respuestas razonables. Los cristianos están llamados a tener respuestas razonables para aquellos que preguntan sobre la fe cristiana (1 Pedro 3:15). En otras palabras, los cristianos están llamados a saber no solo \u003Cem>qué\u003C\u002Fem> creen, sino \u003Cem>por qué\u003C\u002Fem> creen. Los cristianos no deben dejar sin respuesta las preguntas que la gente tiene como si la fe cristiana histórica no tuviera respuestas legítimas. Entonces, ¿por qué creer en la Biblia? ¿Es razonable creer que la Biblia es en efecto la Palabra de Dios y completamente confiable?\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\">\u003Cspan>La Biblia afirma ser la Palabra de Dios \u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>       Primero, al responder estas preguntas, uno debe preguntar: “¿Qué afirma la Biblia sobre sí misma?” Dos libros del Antiguo Testamento afirman que los Diez Mandamientos vinieron directamente del dedo de Dios (Éxodo 31:18; Deuteronomio 5:22). Éxodo 24:4 afirma que “Moisés escribió todas las palabras del SEÑOR.”\u003Ca rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002FTrueLife%20Article\u002F5-Why%20Believe%20the%20Bible?#_edn1\">[1]\u003C\u002Fa> De manera similar, los profetas del Antiguo Testamento afirman en sus escritos más de 5.000 veces: “Así dice el SEÑOR.” En otras palabras, estas eran las palabras de Dios, no las suyas. El Nuevo Testamento afirma en 2 Timoteo 3:16 que “Toda la Escritura es inspirada por Dios.” En otro lugar, 2 Pedro 1:21 también dice que “ninguna profecía fue hecha por un acto de voluntad humana, sino que los hombres movidos por el Espíritu Santo hablaron de parte de Dios.”\u003Ca rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002FTrueLife%20Article\u002F5-Why%20Believe%20the%20Bible?#_edn2\">[2]\u003C\u002Fa> Así que estos pasajes afirman que lo que se escribió en la Biblia no eran las palabras de meros hombres, sino que provenían del mismo Dios. Con afirmaciones como esta, no es de extrañar que la Biblia haya suscitado una respuesta tan fuerte de tantas personas. Pero la Biblia no es necesariamente \u003Cem>la Palabra de Dios\u003C\u002Fem> solo porque lo afirma. Entonces, ¿es la Biblia realmente \u003Cem>la Palabra de Dios\u003C\u002Fem> y es confiable?\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\"> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\">La evidencia de manuscritos antiguos confirma que las palabras originales\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\">de la Biblia han sido preservadas\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>       El Antiguo Testamento fue escrito durante un período de mil años desde 1450 a.C. hasta 400 a.C. A lo largo de los siglos, los escribas copiaban meticulosamente el Antiguo Testamento contando los versos, palabras y letras de la Ley y otras partes de la Escritura para asegurar la transmisión fiel del texto bíblico. Cuando los manuscritos más antiguos comenzaban a desgastarse, hacían copias nuevas y descartaban las antiguas. De hecho, las copias nuevas eran, en algunos aspectos, incluso \u003Cem>preferidas\u003C\u002Fem> sobre las copias antiguas que estaban más sujetas al desgaste. Por esta razón, las copias más antiguas disponibles de manuscritos del Antiguo Testamento, en las que se basa la Biblia moderna, datan de alrededor del año 1000 d.C.\u003Ca rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002FTrueLife%20Article\u002F5-Why%20Believe%20the%20Bible?#_edn3\">[3]\u003C\u002Fa> Esto lleva a una pregunta importante. ¿Los manuscritos hebreos datados alrededor del 1000 d.C., junto con los textos modernos que ahora poseemos, preservan de manera confiable los manuscritos originales? El mayor descubrimiento arqueológico del siglo XX arrojaría gran luz sobre esta pregunta.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>       Los Rollos del Mar Muerto fueron descubiertos en las cuevas de Qumrán en la orilla noroeste del Mar Muerto entre 1947 y 1956. Estos Rollos (textos completos o fragmentos) contienen todos los libros del Antiguo Testamento excepto el libro de Ester. Los Rollos del Mar Muerto datan entre 200 a.C. y 70 d.C. La datación por carbono-14 confirma la datación de los Rollos del Mar Muerto, junto con evidencia de arqueología, paleografía y alusiones internas (referencias) dentro de los Rollos. Previamente, los manuscritos más antiguos del Antiguo Testamento disponibles databan de alrededor del 900 d.C. El descubrimiento de los Rollos del Mar Muerto retrotrae la datación de los manuscritos del Antiguo Testamento disponibles 1.000 años atrás. Cuando se examinaron los rollos, se descubrió que los escribas fueron precisos con gran exactitud. Muchos de los textos bíblicos de los Rollos del Mar Muerto son notablemente casi idénticos al Texto Masorético hebreo (en el que se basa la Biblia moderna) con la excepción de unas pocas diferencias menores (como algunos detalles de ortografía). Los Rollos del Mar Muerto demuestran la confiabilidad y la transmisión fiel del texto del Antiguo Testamento. En otras palabras, podemos estar seguros de que lo que tenemos \u003Cem>ahora\u003C\u002Fem> es lo que se escribió \u003Cem>originalmente\u003C\u002Fem>. El Antiguo Testamento fue bien preservado y transmitido con precisión hasta nosotros hoy.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>       El Nuevo Testamento fue escrito entre 40-100 d.C. Hay más de 5.000 manuscritos antiguos o porciones de manuscritos del Nuevo Testamento. Las porciones más antiguas de estos manuscritos del Nuevo Testamento datan de meras \u003Cem>décadas\u003C\u002Fem> después de los manuscritos originales. Por ejemplo, uno de los hallazgos más asombrosos es el fragmento John Rylands (P52), que mide 3 ½ por 2 ½ pulgadas y contiene palabras de Juan 18:31-33, 37-38. Este fragmento de papiro fue descubierto en Egipto y se data alrededor del 125 d.C., lo que da evidencia convincente de la circulación temprana del Evangelio de Juan. El Papiro John Rylands data de meras décadas, o incluso más cerca, del manuscrito original. Esto puede no sonar tan impresionante hasta que se comparen estos números con otros documentos antiguos. Por ejemplo, solo hay un puñado de copias de los escritos históricos de Heródoto, con la copia más antigua datada 1.300 años después del original. Solo un puñado de copias existen de los escritos de César, con la más antigua datando 900 años después del original.\u003Ca rel=\"nofollow\" target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002FTrueLife%20Article\u002F5-Why%20Believe%20the%20Bible?#_edn4\">[4]\u003C\u002Fa> Ningún erudito serio cuestionaría la autenticidad de Heródoto o César. Sin embargo, hay más de 5.000 manuscritos o porciones de manuscritos del Nuevo Testamento, algunos que se remontan a meras \u003Cem>décadas\u003C\u002Fem> de los originales. Por lo tanto, se puede tener plena confianza en que lo que ahora tenemos registrado en el Nuevo Testamento es lo que se escribió originalmente. La superioridad del Nuevo Testamento como documento histórico confiable se demuestra en la evidencia manuscrita.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\"> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\">Testimonio confiable de testigos oculares confirma la historia de la Biblia\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>       Hay quienes simplemente no creerán en los eventos históricos (incluyendo la res","\n\nPourquoi croire la Bible ?","\n\n왜 성경을 믿어야 하나요?",1,{"id":70,"title":71,"description":72,"featured":27,"transcript":28,"subtitle":28,"playerembed":28,"category_id":6,"slug":73,"answertype":30,"created_at":74,"updated_at":75,"thumbnail":76,"embed_thumbnail":34,"embed_icon":35,"title_es":77,"description_es":78,"playerembed_es":16,"transcript_es":16,"title_fr":79,"description_fr":78,"playerembed_fr":16,"transcript_fr":16,"title_ko":80,"description_ko":78,"playerembed_ko":16,"transcript_ko":16,"question_id":16,"category_slug":8,"category_name":-1},45,"Transcript: Are Errors in the Bible?","\u003Cp>\u003Cb>Are Errors in the Bible?\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>A Study Guide\u003C\u002Fp>\r\n\r\n\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\">\u003Ci>\"How\r\ndo we know that the manuscripts that we have the Greek text that we have really\r\nreflect what Matthew wrote?\" - Dr. Ed Gravely\u003C\u002Fi>\u003C\u002Fp>\r\n\r\n\u003Cp>\u003Cb>I.              \r\n\u003C\u002Fb>\u003Cb>\u003Cu>THE\r\nERRORS\u003C\u002Fu>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\r\n\r\n\u003Cp>This\r\nquestion has become increasing more important in the modern day, because there\r\nare skeptics out there raising doubts. One of the skeptics suggests there are as many as 400,000 errors\r\nin the New Testament, such as scribal errors or manuscript errors.  \u003C\u002Fp>\r\n\r\n\u003Cp>Manuscripts differed\r\nfrom one another in about four key ways: \r\n\u003C\u002Fp>\r\n\r\n\u003Cp>1.  A scribe would make a mistake \u003C\u002Fp>\r\n\r\n\u003Cp>- The\r\nerrors were easy to find - a scribe would fix the error.\u003C\u002Fp>\r\n\r\n\u003Cp>2.     Orthographic\r\nvariance\u003C\u002Fp>\r\n\r\n\u003Cp>-  \"Colour\" and \"color\" are an example of regional spelling - regional spellings are helpful because they\r\nshow where the writing is from. \u003C\u002Fp>\r\n\r\n\u003Cp>3.     Minor\r\nNon-Translatable Variance\u003C\u002Fp>\r\n\r\n\u003Cp>-      \r\nDifferences in Bible manuscripts that are not visible\r\nin English - inform textual critics where the texts are from\r\nand how it was produced. \u003C\u002Fp>\r\n\r\n\u003Cp>4.     Major\r\nTranslatable Variant\u003C\u002Fp>\r\n\r\n\u003Cp>-      \r\nFootnotes mark these - only\r\na couple dozen (Mark 16, John 8). These are not sufficient reasons to doubt the\r\nvalidity of the Bible.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>","transcript-are-errors-in-the-bible","2019-12-19T17:42:47.160Z","2023-08-03T05:46:25.904Z","https:\u002F\u002Ftruelifeorg.s3.amazonaws.com\u002Fresources\u002F1661451859753_Screenshot%202022-08-25%20142315.png","\n\n¿Hay errores en la Biblia?","\r\n\r\n\u003Cp>\u003Cb>II.              \r\n\u003C\u002Fb>\u003Cb>\u003Cu>THE\r\nMANUSCRIPTS\u003C\u002Fu>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\r\n\r\n\u003Cp>There\r\n","\n\nYes, there are errors in the Bible. But that doesn't mean that the Bible is not the Word of God. The Bible was written by humans, and humans are imperfect. But even though the Bible was written by imperfect humans, it is still the Word of God because it was inspired by the Holy Spirit.","\n\n오류가 성경에 있나요?",{"id":82,"title":83,"description":84,"featured":27,"transcript":85,"subtitle":86,"playerembed":87,"category_id":6,"slug":88,"answertype":89,"created_at":74,"updated_at":90,"thumbnail":91,"embed_thumbnail":92,"embed_icon":35,"title_es":93,"description_es":94,"playerembed_es":95,"transcript_es":16,"title_fr":96,"description_fr":97,"playerembed_fr":16,"transcript_fr":16,"title_ko":98,"description_ko":99,"playerembed_ko":16,"transcript_ko":16,"question_id":16,"category_slug":8,"category_name":-1},50,"How Did We Get the New Testament?","\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"color: inherit; font-family: inherit;\">Join us on a memorable journey through history as we explore the origin of the New Testament. This dynamic documentary, driven by content and video prestige, is sure to have you captivated. Please join TrueLife host Rachel Joy Marcussen, Dr. Jim Borland, Dr. Leo Percer, and Dr. Kevin King as they present the answers to your question. \u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>\u003Cspan>If you would like to learn more from \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002Fhome\u002Fprofessors?id=13\">Dr. Jim Borland\u003C\u002Fa>, you can at \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.liberty.edu\u002F\">Liberty University\u003C\u002Fa>. You can also join \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002Fhome\u002Fprofessors?id=12\">Dr. Leo Percer\u003C\u002Fa> and \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002Fhome\u002Fprofessors?id=14\">Dr. Kevin King \u003C\u002Fa>for class at \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.liberty.edu\u002Facademics\u002Freligion\u002Fseminary\u002F\">Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary\u003C\u002Fa>.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>TrueLife.org would be more than happy to help introduce you to a pastor so you can experience the great blessing of being in a church family. Please use our \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002Flocations\">Church Finder\u003C\u002Fa> to easily locate and email a pastor near you.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Ftruelife.org\u002Fanswers\u002Fhow-can-i-be-forgiven-and-go-to-heaven-video\">Click here if you are ready to be forgiven and go to Heaven\u003C\u002Fa>!\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>","\u003Cp>How Did We Get the New Testament?\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>A Study Guide\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>“We have no ancient sources about Jesus and Christianity from ‘neutral’ observers. Whether we are dealing with Roman writers like Tacitus or Jewish writers like Josephus or the New Testament writers themselves, none of these writers is attempting to give us an ‘objective’ assessment of the data, if by ‘objective’ one means value free or purely neutral. Thus, all the relevant ancient data must be critically sifted and evaluated . . . we must always ‘consider the source’ of the information as we evaluate its interpretation of the data.”\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>New Testament History: A Narrative Account, Ben Witherington III\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The New Testament records the virgin birth, miracles, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but many are skeptical of the New Testament’s claims concerning Christ. So how can we know if the claims of the New Testament are true? We must first explore the origin of the New Testament. Jesus’ disciples first proclaimed Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection right after his resurrection and accession back to Heaven. This oral message [eventually] took on a written form. Its essential message appears in the four gospels.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>I. The Four Gospels\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were penned before AD 70. Matthew, one of the 12 disciples, recorded his first-hand account. Mark recorded the Apostle Peter's recollections. Luke, missionary companion of the Apostle Paul, consulted many eye-witnesses. John, also an eyewitness of Christ, penned his gospel toward the end of the 1st century.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>II. The NT Epistles\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Many New Testament Epistles were written before these gospel accounts. James, the Brother of Jesus, penned his book around AD 45, just over a decade after Christ’s death. Paul wrote his epistle to the Galatians around AD 47 to 48. These early epistles all clearly refer to Jesus as Lord, a reference to his deity.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>So we see that the New Testament epistles were written by the apostles during a period in history where the eye-witnesses were still alive, therefore they were personally able to validate the writings of the New Testament and prevented any myth from developing in the accounts. So what are the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament and how many do we have?\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>III. Earliest Manuscripts of the New Testament\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Early papyrus copies rapidly circulated throughout the Roman Empire. Scholars have discovered about 120 of these early manuscripts. Some even have large portions of the New Testament while others contain a single book or page. They date from about AD 100 to about AD 700. For example, the Apostle John wrote the fourth gospel at the end of the 1st century. A small papyrus fragment with a small portion of the gospel of John copied onto it was found in Egypt dating to the early 2nd century.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>This shows how quickly these gospels traveled. In 30 years, people had copied and transported this gospel far from its origin in Ephesus. Hundreds of copies were made. It would have been impossible for anyone to collect and change them all. This is why we can be assured that we have what was originally written by the apostles themselves. How reliable is the recorded information of the New Testament authors?\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>IV. Reliability of the New Testament Authors\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Eye-Witnesses: Many of the men who wrote the New Testament actually witnessed the events they recorded. The Apostle Peter said, ‘We were eye-witnesses of his majesty.” The Apostle John says, “We have seen with our eyes, have looked upon, and our hands have handled,\" referring to Jesus. John also says, “And the Word Jesus Christ became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory.”\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Some skeptics claim that none of the New Testament gospel writers met Jesus. The gospel of John bears all the marks of a true eye-witness account. It was clearly written by a Palestinian Jew, of the 1st century who was familiar with Jewish customs, religion, and geography.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>One critic, Sir William Ramsey investigated Luke’s gospel and the Book of Acts. Ramsey was surprised to find the books to be historically accurate with great precision and concluded that the works were completely authentic. As a result, he trusted Christ and become a great defender of the faith.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Our next question: “Why [were] the 27 books of the New Testament were accepted, while others were not?”\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>V. The New Testament Canon: A Brief History\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Inclusion in the Canon: A book was included in the New Testament, if: An Apostle, or a close companion of an apostle, wrote it. The books were written in the 1st century. The books would not contradict themselves or the Old Testament scriptures. They would be widely accepted by the early church.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Recognition of the Canon: The first person known to us to establish a complete list of New Testament books was Marcion around AD 140. History remembers Marcion merely because he established a shortened cannon list, including the gospel of Luke and the letters of Paul.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>By AD 180 the gospel canon was complete. The 2nd century Muratorian canon is a list of books regarded as authoritative in the early church at that time. It lists the four gospels, Acts, all 13 of Paul’s letters, plus the letters of John, Jude, and Revelation. By the end of the 2nd, other books (such as 1 Peter and 1 John) have also gained wide-acceptance. The Eastern church had also adopted Hebrews and the West accepted Revelation.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Some people claim that Constantine exerted a great influence on the books chosen for the New Testament and even their content. Nowhere is there any indication that Constantine tried to influence the selection or contents of the books of scripture. It would have been impossible for him to change the contents of individual books because they had circulated among the churches for over 200 years.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The first person to publish a list of New Testament books exactly as it is today was Athenasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Easter letter in AD 367. Since then, few have questioned the contents of the canon, at least until recent times.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>VI. Transmission of the New Testament Over the Centuries\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Some critics claim that all we have today in our manuscripts and translations are the accumulated errors of centuries of copying the text with little or nothing resembling the original manuscripts from the 1st century. In the earliest period of copying, there were some still living (e.g. Papias and Polycarp) who personally knew the authors of the New Testament. There also remained some who were eye-witnesses of those recorded events. Those witnesses would have quickly pointed out any errors introduced by later copyists.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>What Happened to the Original Manuscripts? The NT writings were completed during the 1st century AD. However, their original fragile papyrus documents disappeared within years after they were written generally due to wear and tear. Yet the test of those original documents remained in existence, preserving copies and maintained through many subsequent generations that spanned the centuries.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Are the Copied Manuscripts Reliable? The New Testament has been copied thousand of times, which naturally leads to copyists errors, arising in some of the manuscripts. Fortunately, if the great number of New Testament manuscripts increases the number of scribal errors. It also increases proportionately the means of correcting the errors. The vast number of manuscripts ensures the spotting of scribal errors and also the ability to confidently preserve the exact wording of the originals by comparing the numerous copies of manuscripts.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Stable Transmission of the New Testament: Copies were not made at a single location. They [were not] deliberately conformed to a single master copy imposed by church authority. So the independence of the scribes at different locations created multiple lines of text transmission. When these independent lines agree on their text, their testimony is of the highest value. Through this process the common text accurately preserves the original writings of the apostles.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Vast Number of New Testament Manuscripts: To all this should be added the vast number of manuscript copies available. Between the 1st century and the 16th, there exist over 24 thousand manuscripts when you include Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and other ancient languages. In the Greek language alone, there are over 5400 manuscripts. This evidence serves as overwhelming confirmation of the integrity of the New Testament texts being preserved. There’s no other document in all of antiquity that even comes close to what we have in the Bible.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>VII. Translation of the New Testament Texts\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Can the Greek writings [of the New Testament] . . . be accurately translated into everyday languages of today? Absolutely! Numerous other works of classical Greek and Latin antiquity are known to the modern reader only in translation and the general reliability of such translations are hardly questioned. As long as the translator renders accurately and precisely what the Greek New Testament text itself states, here should be little question regarding the accuracy of meaning being conveyed from the original text to our modern translations.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Key Scriptures: 2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1; John 1:14\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Recommended Further Reading:\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Encountering the New Testament: A Historical and Theological Survey, by Walter A. Elwell\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How We Got the Bible, by Neil R. Lightfoot\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>New Testament History: A Narrative Account, by Ben Witherington III\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The New Testament Story, by Ben Witherington III\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>","Join us on a memorable journey through history as we explore the origin of the New Testament. This dynamic documentary, driven by content and video prestige, is sure to have you captivated. ","\u003Ciframe src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fplayer.vimeo.com\u002Fvideo\u002F10279159?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0&color=BF1E2E&autoplay=1\" width=\"935\" height=\"526\" frameborder=\"0\" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen>\u003C\u002Fiframe>","how-did-we-get-the-new-testament","video","2023-08-03T05:56:24.850Z","https:\u002F\u002Ftruelifeorg.s3.amazonaws.com\u002Fresources\u002F1630177740794_Screen%20Shot%202021-08-28%20at%203.08.15%20PM.png","https:\u002F\u002Ftruelifeorg.s3.amazonaws.com\u002Fresources\u002F1630177742010_Screen%20Shot%202021-08-28%20at%203.08.15%20PM.png","¿Cómo obtuvimos el Nuevo Testamento?","\u003Cp>Acompañenos en un viaje memorable a través de la historia mientras exploramos el origen del Nuevo Testamento. Este documental dinámico, impulsado por el contenido y el prestigio del video, seguramente lo cautivará. \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>¿Está listo para descubrir qué es la verdadera vida? Si es así, por favor haga click aqui .\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Acompáñenos en un viaje memorable a través de la historia mientras exploramos el origen del Nuevo Testamento. Este documental dinámico, impulsado por el prestigio del contenido y el video, seguramente lo cautivará. Únase a la anfitriona de TrueLife, Rachel Joy Marcussen, al Dr. Jim Borland, al Dr. Leo Percer y al Dr. Kevin King mientras le presenten las respuestas a su pregunta. \u003C\u002Fp>","\u003Ciframe src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fplayer.vimeo.com\u002Fvideo\u002F464436079\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"autoplay; fullscreen\" allowfullscreen>\u003C\u002Fiframe>","\n\nComment avons-nous obtenu le Nouveau Testament?","\n\n\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"color: inherit; font-family: inherit;\">Rejoignez-nous pour un voyage mémorable à travers l'histoire alors que nous explorons l'origine du Nouveau Testament. Ce documentaire dynamique, axé sur le contenu et la vidéo de prestige, vous captivera. Veuillez rejoindre Rachel Joy Marcussen, animatrice de","\n\n우리가 새로운 성경을 얻은 것은 어떻게 되었을까?","\n\n우리와 함께 역사상 새로운 성서의 기원을 탐험하는 추억에 가득한 여행을 떠나세",{"id":101,"title":102,"description":103,"featured":16,"transcript":104,"subtitle":105,"playerembed":106,"category_id":6,"slug":107,"answertype":89,"created_at":74,"updated_at":108,"thumbnail":109,"embed_thumbnail":110,"embed_icon":35,"title_es":77,"description_es":111,"playerembed_es":112,"transcript_es":16,"title_fr":113,"description_fr":114,"playerembed_fr":16,"transcript_fr":16,"title_ko":115,"description_ko":116,"playerembed_ko":16,"transcript_ko":16,"question_id":16,"category_slug":8,"category_name":-1},52,"Are Errors in the Bible?","\u003Cp>Are you ready to find out what true life is? If you are, please \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002Fvideos\u002Fdo-you-have-true-life\">click here\u003C\u002Fa>.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>How do we know that the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts reflect what the authors originally wrote? Did the scribes change the biblical text over the years? Some skeptics claim there are hundreds of thousands of errors in the New Testament text. Join Dr. Ed Gravely for his insightful answer.  \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>If you would like to learn more from Dr. Ed Gravely, you can at \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fsebts.edu\u002F\">Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary\u003C\u002Fa>. \u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>TrueLife.org would be more than happy to help introduce you to a pastor so you can experience the great blessing of being in a church family. Please use our \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002Flocations\">Church Finder\u003C\u002Fa> to easily locate and email a pastor near you.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>","\u003Cp>\u003Cb>Are Errors in the Bible?\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>A Study Guide\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\">\u003Ci>\"How do we know that the manuscripts that we have the Greek text that we have really reflect what Matthew wrote?\" - Dr. Ed Gravely\u003C\u002Fi>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>I.               \u003C\u002Fb>\u003Cb>\u003Cu>THE ERRORS\u003C\u002Fu>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>This question has become increasing more important in the modern day, because there are skeptics out there raising doubts. One of the skeptics suggests there are as many as 400,000 errors in the New Testament, such as scribal errors or manuscript errors. \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Manuscripts differed from one another in about four key ways: \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>1.  A scribe would make a mistake\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>- The errors were easy to find - a scribe would fix the error.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>2.     Orthographic variance\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-  \"Colour\" and \"color\" are an example of regional spelling - regional spellings are helpful because they show where the writing is from. \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>3.     Minor Non-Translatable Variance\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-       Differences in Bible manuscripts that are not visible in English - inform textual critics where the texts are from and how it was produced. \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>4.     Major Translatable Variant\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-       Footnotes mark these - only a couple dozen (Mark 16, John 8). These are not sufficient reasons to doubt the validity of the Bible.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>","How do we know that the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts reflect what the authors originally wrote? Did the scribes change the biblical text over the years? Some skeptics claim there are hundreds of thousands of errors in the New Testament text. Join Dr. Ed G","\u003Ciframe src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fplayer.vimeo.com\u002Fvideo\u002F14896648?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0&color=BF1E2E&autoplay=1\" width=\"935\" height=\"526\" frameborder=\"0\" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen>\u003C\u002Fiframe>","are-errors-in-the-bible","2023-08-03T06:00:35.719Z","https:\u002F\u002Ftruelifeorg.s3.amazonaws.com\u002Fresources\u002F1630177815635_Screen%20Shot%202021-08-28%20at%203.09.48%20PM.png","https:\u002F\u002Ftruelifeorg.s3.amazonaws.com\u002Fresources\u002F1630177817026_Screen%20Shot%202021-08-28%20at%203.09.48%20PM.png","\n\n¿Estás listo para descubrir cuál es la verdadera vida? Si lo estás, por favor haz clic aquí. \n¿Cómo sabemos que los manuscritos griegos y hebreos reflejan lo que los autores originalmente escribieron? ¿Los escribas cambiaron el texto bíblico a lo largo de los","\u003Ciframe src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fplayer.vimeo.com\u002Fvideo\u002F464388672\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"autoplay; fullscreen\" allowfullscreen>\u003C\u002Fiframe>","\n\nErreurs dans la Bible?","\n\nÊtes-vous prêt à découvrir ce qu'est la vraie vie ? Si c'est le cas, veuillez cliquer ici.\n\nComment savons-nous que les manuscrits grecs et hébreux reflètent ce que les auteurs ont écrit à l'origine ? Les copistes ont-ils changé le texte biblique","\n\n성경에 오류가 있나요?","\n\n진실 인생이란 무엇인지 궁금하시나요? 그렇다면, 여기를 클릭해주세요.\n\n그리",{"id":118,"title":119,"description":120,"featured":27,"transcript":121,"subtitle":122,"playerembed":123,"category_id":6,"slug":124,"answertype":89,"created_at":74,"updated_at":125,"thumbnail":126,"embed_thumbnail":127,"embed_icon":35,"title_es":128,"description_es":129,"playerembed_es":130,"transcript_es":16,"title_fr":131,"description_fr":132,"playerembed_fr":16,"transcript_fr":16,"title_ko":133,"description_ko":134,"playerembed_ko":16,"transcript_ko":16,"question_id":16,"category_slug":8,"category_name":-1},53,"Are the Gospels Accurate?","\u003Cp>Are you ready to find out what true life is? If you are, please \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002Fvideos\u002Fdo-you-have-true-life\">click here\u003C\u002Fa>.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Many skeptics talk about the Gospels being filled with inaccuracies and conflicting versions. How do we know that the Gospels are trustworthy? Here to answer this question is Dr. Ed Gravely.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>\u003Cspan>For further information please read \"\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002Fhome\u002Fcategory_article_list_show?article=17&status=article\">The Synoptic Problem\u003C\u002Fa>\" in our article section.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>\u003Cspan>If you would like to learn from \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002Fhome\u002Fprofessors?id=26\">Dr. Ed Gravely\u003C\u002Fa> in person, you can at \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.sebts.edu\u002F\">Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary\u003C\u002Fa>. \u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>TrueLife.org would be more than happy to help introduce you to a pastor so you can experience the great blessing of being in a church family. Please use our \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002Flocations\">Church Finder\u003C\u002Fa> to easily locate and email a pastor near you.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>","\u003Cp>\u003Cb>ARE THE GOSPELS ACCURATE?\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>A Study Guide\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp class=\"wysiwyg-text-align-center\">\u003Ci>Are the gospels accurate? It’s another great question.  When people ask me that question they often want to know how do we what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote in the gospels is what Jesus really said or things Jesus really did. - Dr. Ed Gravely\u003C\u002Fi>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>I.               \u003C\u002Fb>\u003Cb>\u003Cu>TWO MAJOR CONSIDERATIONS\u003C\u002Fu>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Ci>1) Things that are unverifiable.                                           \u003C\u002Fi>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>- Jesus has a private conversation with one of his apostles\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Ci>2) Things that are verifiable.                              \u003C\u002Fi>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>- Geographical references\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>- Chronological markers\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>- Naming politicians\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>- Geographical locations\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>*** \u003Cb>\u003Ci>\u003Cu>All these references have been checked and have 100% accuracy\u003C\u002Fu>\u003C\u002Fi>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cu>Question:\u003C\u002Fu>\u003C\u002Fb> So what do we do with places where the gospel can’t be verified externally? \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cu>Answer:\u003C\u002Fu>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>1)    \u003C\u002Fb>\u003Cb>Gospel record\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Ci>Similarities in the 4 gospels\u003C\u002Fi>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-       He was God and became a man\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-       That he lived on the earth and\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-       Taught about the kingdom of God that\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-       He died on the cross, a death for sin and that\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-       He rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>2)    \u003C\u002Fb>\u003Cb>External Confirmation\u002FHistorical Records\u003C\u002Fb>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-       \u003Cb>\u003Cu>Jewish scholars\u003C\u002Fu>\u003C\u002Fb>: claiming that Jesus was this crazy guy who claimed to be a messiah who was the deceiver of the people. \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-       \u003Cb>\u003Cu>Roman scholar:\u003C\u002Fu>\u003C\u002Fb> are going to describe early Christian beliefs in a messiah and God as being subversive and contrary to the government.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-       \u003Cb>\u003Cu>Greek scholars:\u003C\u002Fu>\u003C\u002Fb> are going to describe Jesus and list him among of some of the religious teachers and describe him as being foolish.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Ci>Things that Jesus talked about…\u003C\u002Fi>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-       Being God in the flesh\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-       He talked about God being sent by the father  \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-       Doing the will of the Father\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-       Hell for those who reject the son\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-       He talked about our sinfulness and our need of a savior\u003Cu>\u003C\u002Fu>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-       He promised that he was offering himself as the ransoms for many\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Ci>Things Jesus did…\u003C\u002Fi>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-       \u003Cb>Died\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>He died a death for sin but not for his own sin he died for our sin and our expectation was the judgment of God.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-       \u003Cb>Resurrected\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>God raised Christ from the dead to give us the promise of new life for those who would believe in him. \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-       \u003Cb>Ascended\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>He ascended into heaven and sent his church on a mission.  \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cdiv>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fdiv>","Many skeptics talk about the Gospels being filled with inaccuracies and conflicting versions. How do we know that the Gospels are trustworthy? Here to answer this question is Dr. Ed Gravely.","\u003Ciframe src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fplayer.vimeo.com\u002Fvideo\u002F14764587?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0&color=BF1E2E&autoplay=1\" width=\"935\" height=\"526\" frameborder=\"0\" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen>\u003C\u002Fiframe>","are-the-gospels-accurate","2023-08-03T06:05:17.390Z","https:\u002F\u002Ftruelifeorg.s3.amazonaws.com\u002Fresources\u002F1630177928209_Screen%20Shot%202021-08-28%20at%203.11.29%20PM.png","https:\u002F\u002Ftruelifeorg.s3.amazonaws.com\u002Fresources\u002F1630177929446_Screen%20Shot%202021-08-28%20at%203.11.29%20PM.png","¿Son precisos los evangelios?","\u003Cp>Muchos escépticos hablan de que los evangelios están llenos de imprecisiones y versiones en conflicto. ¿Cómo sabemos que los evangelios son dignos de confianza? He aquí para responder esta pregunta el Dr. Ed Gravely. ¿Está listo para descubrir qué es la verdadera vida? Si es así, por favor haga clic aquí. Muchos escépticos hablan de que los evangelios están llenos de imprecisiones y versiones en conflicto. ¿Cómo sabemos que los evangelios son dignos de confianza? He Aquí para responder esta pregunta tenemos al Dr. Ed Gravely. Para obtener más información, lea \"El problema sinóptico \" en nuestra sección de artículos. Si desea aprender del Dr. Ed Gravely en persona, puede hacerlo en el Seminario Teológico Bautista del Sureste. TrueLife.org estaría más que feliz de poder presentarle a un pastor para que pueda experimentar la gran bendición de estar en una familia de la iglesia. Utilice nuestro Buscador de iglesias para localizar y enviar un correo electrónico a un pastor cerca de usted.\u003C\u002Fp>","\u003Ciframe src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fplayer.vimeo.com\u002Fvideo\u002F464404535\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"autoplay; fullscreen\" allowfullscreen>\u003C\u002Fiframe>","\n\nLes Évangiles sont-ils exacts?","\n\nÊtes-vous prêt à découvrir ce qu'est la vraie vie ? Si vous l'êtes, veuillez cliquer ici.\n\nDe nombreux sceptiques parlent des Évangiles remplis d'inexactitudes et de versions conflictuelles. Comment savons-nous que les Évangiles sont fiables ? Dr Ed Gravely","\n\n고릴라가 정확한가요?","\n\n진실 삶이 무엇인지 알고 싶으세요? 그렇다면, 여기를 클릭해주세요.\n\n수많은 의심",{"id":136,"title":137,"description":138,"featured":27,"transcript":28,"subtitle":28,"playerembed":28,"category_id":6,"slug":139,"answertype":30,"created_at":140,"updated_at":141,"thumbnail":142,"embed_thumbnail":34,"embed_icon":35,"title_es":143,"description_es":144,"playerembed_es":16,"transcript_es":16,"title_fr":145,"description_fr":146,"playerembed_fr":16,"transcript_fr":16,"title_ko":147,"description_ko":148,"playerembed_ko":16,"transcript_ko":16,"question_id":16,"category_slug":8,"category_name":-1},90,"The Synoptic Problem","\u003Cp>The question of the relationship between the Gospels is often discussed but not easily answered. This is especially true when attention is focused on the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke—the popularly designated “Synoptic Gospels.”\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The term \u003Cem>Synoptic\u003C\u002Fem> means \u003Cem>to see together\u003C\u002Fem> or \u003Cem>to view from a common perspective\u003C\u002Fem>. The first three Gospels are so designated because they present the life and ministry of Jesus from a common point-of-view that is different from that of the Gospel of John, whose content is 92% unique. Further, John’s Gospel, written between A.D. 80 and 95, is usually dated later than the Synoptics, and no extensive literary dependence is readily discerned. In contrast, the Synoptics often use similar vocabulary and word order, tend to follow the same outline, and record similar material from the life and teachings of Jesus. Sometimes their accounts are almost identical. However, at other times important differences are clearly evident. This phenomena has given rise, especially in the modern era, to what is called the “Synoptic Problem” or “Synoptic Question.”\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How then are we to understand and explain what appears to be an unmistakable literary relationship among the first three Gospels? Several theories have surfaced which attempt to explain these similarities. Four stand out as the most prominent.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>1. Primitive Gospel Theory\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Also known as the Ur-gospel Theory, this position was first posited by Gotthold E. Lessing in 1778 and suggests that the three biblical or canonical Gospels drew their material from an earlier, more primitive gospel written in Aramaic. Johann G. Eichhorn elaborated on Lessing’s theory in 1794, suggesting A.D. 35 as the date of origin for this primitive—though no longer extant—gospel.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>There have been unfruitful and untenable ramifications of this model. Eichorn eliminated eyewitness authority for the existing Synoptic Gospels, claiming that the “primitive” gospel was written by a student of one of the apostles. This work was used as the basis for other gospels accounts prior to the writing of the extant Gospels as we know them today. Matthew, Mark, and Luke then used these gospels as the sources for their respective works, thus explaining the similarities seen within the Synoptics.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>That an early gospel existed is certainly possible. However, such a theory has little if any historical support and, further, it both begins and concludes with extensive speculation. The idea originally postulated by Lessing had in and of itself one main flaw: if Matthew, Mark, and Luke drew from the same source (the Ur-gospel), why then do their Gospels differ as they do? Lessing’s theory is therefore unsatisfactory.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Eichhorn’s notion of multiple gospels succeeding the Ur-gospel creates additional problems as well. While it seems to solve the above flaw, Eichhorn’s claim that the extant Gospel writers are simply translations of non-existent, third-hand accounts undermines the authority historically given to the authors of the Synoptics. They are relegated to mere scribes void of any eyewitness credibility. Such a ramification leads to further logical conclusions which both a) compromise the integrity of the Gospels, and b) is inadequate to account for the historical data.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>2. Oral Tradition Theory\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong> \u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>J. G. von Herder (1744-1803) posited the theory that an “oral gospel” or tradition of material was behind the Synoptic Gospels—that the Gospel material was passed along by word of mouth before being written down. This oral gospel would have originated with the disciples, passed along throughout Palestine between A.D. 35 and\u003Cstrong> \u003C\u002Fstrong>40  before spreading outward, and was most likely used to assist the earliest preachers and evangelists. Finally, several decades after its inception, the need for a permanent, written gospel arose. This led to the writing of the Synoptic Gospels.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The necessity for a concrete gospel was two-fold: first, the disciples were aging and there was a need to secure an accurate, eyewitness account of Jesus’ teachings. Second, a unified and definitive set of teachings were needed to combat early church heresy and to serve as the foundational basis of Christian doctrine. The result was the oral tradition finally being transcribed into written form and subsequently published. The new, written material was then used by Matthew, Mark, and Luke in the writing of their Gospels, thus explaining, according to Herder and other oral traditionists, the similarities among them.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>That an early, orally transmitted form of Jesus’ teachings existed is not debated. There most certainly is some truth in this theory. However, in and of itself, this theory is insufficient to account for (a) the testified existence of early written accounts (see Luke 1:1-3), (b) the different order of events discovered in the Synoptics, and (c) the variations in form, content, vocabulary, grammar, and word order that are present in the Synoptic Gospels. Thus, while not wanting to minimize the influence of a common oral tradition upon the writers of the Synoptics, the phenomena of Synoptic Gospels seems to require more than a common oral tradition.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>3. Markan Priority\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The Markan Priority theory was not advocated until the 19th century. However, due in large to the rise of historical criticism (especially the works of H. J. Holtzmann in 1863 and B. H. Streeter in 1924), it has become without question the most popular hypothesis among contemporary New Testament scholars. This model initially began as a two-source theory, though it is now usually expanded into a four-source theory.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Here Mark is viewed as the first Gospel written and is the foundation for Matthew and Luke, both of whom incorporated much of Mark. Matthew and Luke also utilized another source (usually assumed to have been written) commonly called Q, from the German word \u003Cem>Quelle\u003C\u002Fem>, meaning \u003Cem>source\u003C\u002Fem>. This second source is said to account for about 250 verses of mostly Jesus’ teaching material that is common to Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. Expanding the two-source theory, a supposed M-source is thought to account for material unique to Matthew, and an L-source is hypothetically set forth to account for material peculiar to Luke, thus explaining the additional material in their respective Gospels.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The case for Markan Priority primarily stems from the vast amount of material seen in both Matthew and Luke which is together repeated in Mark’s Gospel. However, there are other reasons Markan priority is commonly affirmed. First, many scholars insist Mark contains harder readings than Matthew and Luke, as the theological content of Mark is said to be more difficult. Rather than Mark taking the less complex passages in Matthew and Mark and making them more difficult, many scholars now suggest that Matthew and\u002For Luke edited Mark to make the readings easier.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Second, Mark is said to have the poorer Greek. Mark contains frequent redundancies, which are speculated to have been eliminated in the Gospels written by Matthew and Luke. Similar to above, it is easier to envision Matthew and Luke improving upon Mark’s Greek than to think Mark used Matthew and\u002For Luke and made the Greek more difficult and cumbersome.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Third, Mark’s theology is less developed than the other two Synoptics. One example of this is the occurrence of the term “Lord” (\u003Cem>kyrios)\u003C\u002Fem>. Mark uses this term only six times. Matthew uses \u003Cem>kyrios\u003C\u002Fem> not only in those \u003Cem>same\u003C\u002Fem> six instances but also an additional twenty-four times. Moreover, Luke uses this title for Jesus even more frequently than does Matthew. Supporters of Markan priority argue that it is easier to understand Matthew and Luke adding this term to their accounts than for Mark to omit it so frequently.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Finally, Mark is the shortest gospel. While Mark contains 661 verses, Luke contains 1,149 and Matthew has 1,068. It is maintained that this can be explained easier by assuming Matthew and Luke chose to add additional information to Mark’s account than to hold that Mark omitted so much material.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Though Markan priority is the most popular theory today, this model does face a number of difficulties. Two such problems stand out as major obstacles that tend to weaken the argument that Mark was the first Gospel written. First, the early church tradition is quite unanimous that Matthew was the primary Gospel (i.e. Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Eusebius, and Augustine). Virtually no early support can be found to favor Mark as the initial Gospel writer. Furthermore, much of the support for Markan priority rests upon the shoulders of the completely conjectured and unsubstantiated sources of Q, L, and M. There is currently no firm, historical evidence to support their existence. These two objections alone are enough for a number of scholars to remain skeptical of the Markan priority theory.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>4. Matthean Priority\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Matthean priority was the dominate position of the church from the first century until the Enlightenment and sees Matthew as the first Synoptic, usually Luke, who utilized Matthew, as the second, and Mark as the third. Mark is viewed as an abbreviated combination or conflation of Matthew and Luke. The preaching of Peter is also seen as a significant influence on Mark’s Gospel, though this is true for most New Testament scholars regardless of how they resolve the Synoptic Problem.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Though the Matthean priority theory was first proposed by H. Owen in 1764, it received the more popular name, “The Griesbach Hypothesis,” from its main advocate, Johann J. Griesbach (1783). It has since received a considerable revival of interest due to the influence of William R. Farmer’s publication of \u003Cem>The Synoptic Problem\u003C\u002Fem> in 1976.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Like the Markan priority model, significant support exists for the argument that Matthew was the initial Gospel. First, that Matthew was written first was virtually the unanimous view of the early church. The opinion of most patristics, such as Irenaeus and Origen, was that Matthew initially wrote a Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic that was later translated into Greek. This was the view of Jerome and Augustine. Further, Clement of Alexandria stated that the first Gospel written was the one containing the genealogies. There is no ancient evidence which concludes that Mark was written before Matthew. Any such theory must overcome the overwhelming witness of the early Christian fathers.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Second, this theory can account for the literary relationship that exists among the Synoptic Gospels without postulating hypothetical documents which have little or no historical support (e.g. a Q source). The phenomenon of agreement among Matthew, Mark, and Luke is explained as follows: Matthew and Luke agreements against Mark occur when Luke follows Matthew and Mark deviates from both sources. Matthew and Mark agreements against Luke occur when Luke deviates from Matthew but Mark does not. Likewise, the agreements seen in Luke and Mark result when Luke departs from his Matthean source, but Mark follows Luke. No hypothetical documents are needed.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Still, there are reasons why many modern New Testament scholars find the Griesbach Hypothesis problematic. For example, there are certain Gospel agreements which appear to be better explained by the priority of Mark. Most of these examples are found when Matthew and Mark deviate from Luke’s account and with Mark-Luke agreements against Matthew. However, most of these conflicts are resolved when Luke is assumed as the second Gospel written. Further, Mark contains redundancies which can be explained by assuming the Two-Document Hypothesis.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>While many scholars believe the Synoptic Problem has been resolved by the Markan priority hypothesis, this judgment may need to be reevaluated. The fact remains that all of our different theories may put more weight on the historical data than is fairly warranted. The early church position, though not definitive, may deserve a renewed hearing. Nevertheless, while we do not know for sure how the first three Gospels writers possibly interacted with one another or what sources may have influenced their work, we can be confident that the result of their work has given us three inspired, truthful, and authoritative portraits of the Lord Jesus Christ. They write from different perspectives and with different theological emphases, but as a whole they present a complementary portrait of God’s Messiah\u002FKing and the Savior of the World, the Lord Jesus Christ. In this all students of Scripture can confidently rest.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Article written by Dr. Daniel L. Akin. “The Order of the Gospels (The Synoptic Problem), Accounts of the Resurrection.” \u003Cem>Holman Bible Handbook\u003C\u002Fem> (Nashville: Holman, 1992)\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cdiv>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fdiv>","the-synoptic-problem","2019-12-19T17:52:13.324Z","2023-08-03T06:13:04.264Z","https:\u002F\u002Fs3.amazonaws.com\u002Ftruelife1\u002Ficons\u002F23\u002Fanswerthumbnails\u002Ffull.jpg","El Problema Sinóptico ","\u003Cp>La pregunta de la relación entre los Evangelios a menudo se discute, pero no se responde fácilmente. Esto es especialmente cierto cuando la atención se centra en los Evangelios de Mateo, Marcos y Lucas, los popularmente denominados \"Evangelios Sinópticos\".\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> El término sinóptico significa ver juntos o ver desde una perspectiva común. Los primeros tres Evangelios se designan así porque presentan la vida y el ministerio de Jesús desde un punto de vista común que es diferente del del Evangelio de Juan, cuyo contenido es 92% único. Además, el Evangelio de Juan, escrito entre los años 80 y 95 d. C., generalmente data de más tarde que los Sinópticos, y no se percibe fácilmente una dependencia literaria extensa. En contraste, los sinópticos a menudo usan vocabulario y orden de palabras similares, tienden a seguir el mismo esquema y registran material similar de la vida y las enseñanzas de Jesús. A veces sus cuentas son casi idénticas. Sin embargo, en otros momentos las diferencias importantes son claramente evidentes. Este fenómeno ha dado lugar, especialmente en la era moderna, a lo que se llama el \"problema sinóptico\" o la \"pregunta sinóptica\".\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> ¿Cómo, entonces, debemos entender y explicar lo que parece ser una relación literaria inconfundible entre los primeros tres Evangelios? Han surgido varias teorías que intentan explicar estas similitudes. Cuatro se destacan como los más destacados.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>1. Teoría primitiva del Evangelio\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> También conocida como la Teoría del Evangelio Ur, esta posición fue planteada por primera vez por Gotthold E. Lessing en 1778 y sugiere que los tres Evangelios bíblicos o canónicos extrajeron su material de un evangelio anterior y más primitivo escrito en arameo. Johann G. Eichhorn elaboró la teoría de Lessing en 1794, sugiriendo el año 35 d. C. como la fecha de origen de este primitivo, aunque ya no existe, evangelio.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> Ha habido ramificaciones infructuosas e insostenibles de este modelo. Eichorn eliminó la autoridad de los testigos oculares para los evangelios sinópticos existentes, alegando que el evangelio \"primitivo\" fue escrito por un alumno de uno de los apóstoles. Este trabajo se utilizó como base para otros relatos de evangelios antes de la redacción de los Evangelios existentes tal como los conocemos hoy. Mateo, Marcos y Lucas luego usaron estos evangelios como fuentes para sus respectivas obras, explicando así las similitudes observadas dentro de los Sinópticos.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Que un evangelio temprano existió es ciertamente posible. Sin embargo, tal teoría tiene poco o ningún respaldo histórico y, además, comienza y concluye con una especulación extensa. La idea originalmente postulada por Lessing tenía en sí misma una falla principal: si Mateo, Marcos y Lucas extrajeron de la misma fuente (el Evangelio Ur), ¿por qué sus Evangelios difieren como lo hacen? La teoría de Lessing es, por lo tanto, insatisfactoria.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>La noción de Eichhorn de múltiples evangelios que suceden al evangelio Ur también crea problemas adicionales. Si bien parece resolver el defecto anterior, la afirmación de Eichhorn de que los escritores evangélicos existentes son simplemente traducciones de relatos de terceros inexistentes socava la autoridad históricamente otorgada a los autores de los Sinópticos. Están relegados a meros escribas sin ninguna credibilidad de testigos oculares. Tal ramificación lleva a conclusiones lógicas adicionales que a) comprometen la integridad de los Evangelios yb) son inadecuadas para dar cuenta de los datos históricos.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>2. Teoría de la tradición oral\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>J. G. von Herder (1744-1803) postuló la teoría de que un \"evangelio oral\" o tradición de material estaba detrás de los Evangelios Sinópticos: que el material del Evangelio fue transmitido de boca en boca antes de ser escrito. Este evangelio oral se habría originado con los discípulos, habría pasado por toda Palestina entre el 35 y el 40 d. C. antes de extenderse hacia afuera, y probablemente se usó para ayudar a los primeros predicadores y evangelistas. Finalmente, varias décadas después de su creación, surgió la necesidad de un evangelio escrito permanente. Esto llevó a la redacción de los Evangelios sinópticos.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> La necesidad de un evangelio concreto era doble: primero, los discípulos estaban envejeciendo y era necesario asegurar un relato exacto y presencial de las enseñanzas de Jesús. Segundo, se necesitaba un conjunto unificado y definitivo de enseñanzas para combatir la herejía de la iglesia primitiva y servir como la base fundamental de la doctrina cristiana. El resultado fue que la tradición oral finalmente se transcribió en forma escrita y posteriormente se publicó. El nuevo material escrito fue utilizado por Mateo, Marcos y Lucas en la escritura de sus Evangelios, explicando así, según Herder y otros tradicionalistas orales, las similitudes entre ellos.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Que una forma temprana de transmisión oral de las enseñanzas de Jesús existió no se debate. Ciertamente hay algo de verdad en esta teoría. Sin embargo, en sí misma, esta teoría es insuficiente para explicar (a) la existencia testificada de relatos escritos tempranos (ver Lucas 1: 1-3), (b) el diferente orden de eventos descubiertos en los Sinópticos, y (c ) las variaciones en forma, contenido, vocabulario, gramática y orden de palabras que están presentes en los Evangelios sinópticos. Por lo tanto, aunque no se quiere minimizar la influencia de una tradición oral común sobre los escritores de los Sinópticos, el fenómeno de los Evangelios Sinópticos parece requerir más que una tradición oral común.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> 3. Prioridad de Markan\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> La teoría de la prioridad de Markan no fue defendida hasta el siglo XIX. Sin embargo, debido en gran medida al aumento de la crítica histórica (especialmente los trabajos de H. J. Holtzmann en 1863 y B. H. Streeter en 1924), se ha convertido sin lugar a dudas en la hipótesis más popular entre los estudiosos contemporáneos del Nuevo Testamento. Este modelo comenzó inicialmente como una teoría de dos fuentes, aunque ahora generalmente se expande en una teoría de cuatro fuentes.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Aquí Marcos es visto como el primer Evangelio escrito y es la base de Mateo y Lucas, quienes incorporaron gran parte de Marcos. Matthew y Luke también utilizaron otra fuente (generalmente se supone que fue escrita) comúnmente llamada Q, de la palabra alemana Quelle, que significa fuente. Se dice que esta segunda fuente representa alrededor de 250 versículos del material de enseñanza de Jesús, que es común a Mateo y Lucas, pero no a Marcos. Al expandir la teoría de las dos fuentes, se cree que una supuesta fuente M explica el material exclusivo de Mateo, y una fuente L se presenta hipotéticamente para dar cuenta del material peculiar de Lucas, lo que explica el material adicional en sus respectivos Evangelios.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>El caso de Markan Priority proviene principalmente de la gran cantidad de material que se ve tanto en Mateo como en Lucas, que se repite en el Evangelio de Marcos. Sin embargo, hay otras razones por las cuales la prioridad de Markan se afirma comúnmente. Primero, muchos estudiosos insisten en que Mark contiene lecturas más difíciles que Mateo y Lucas, ya que se dice que el contenido teológico de Mark es más difícil. En lugar de que Mark tome los pasajes menos complejos de Matthew y Mark y los haga más difíciles, muchos estudiosos ahora sugieren que Matthew y \u002F o Luke editaron a Mark para facilitar las lecturas.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Segundo, se dice que Mark tiene el griego más pobre. Marcos contiene frecuentes despidos, que se especula que han sido eliminados en los Evangelios escritos por Mateo y Lucas. Similar a lo anterior, es más fácil imaginar que Mateo y Lucas mejoren sobre el griego de Marcos que pensar que Marcos usó a Mateo y \u002F o Lucas e hizo que el griego fuera más difícil y engorroso.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> Tercero, la teología de Mark está menos desarrollada que las otras dos sinópticas. Un ejemplo de esto es la aparición del término \"Señor\" (kyrios). Mark usa este término solo seis veces. Matthew usa kyrios no solo en esas mismas seis instancias sino también veinticuatro veces más. Además, Lucas usa este título para Jesús aún más frecuentemente que Mateo. Los partidarios de la prioridad de Markan argumentan que es más fácil entender que Matthew y Luke agreguen este término a sus cuentas que Mark lo omita con tanta frecuencia.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> Finalmente, Marcos es el evangelio más corto. Mientras que Marcos contiene 661 versos, Lucas contiene 1.149 y Mateo tiene 1.068. Se sostiene que esto puede explicarse más fácilmente suponiendo que Matthew y Luke eligieron agregar información adicional a la cuenta de Mark en lugar de sostener que Mark omitió tanto material.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> Aunque la prioridad de Markan es la teoría más popular hoy en día, este modelo enfrenta varias dificultades. Dos de estos problemas se destacan como obstáculos importantes que tienden a debilitar el argumento de que Marcos fue el primer Evangelio escrito. Primero, la tradición de la iglesia primitiva es bastante unánime de que Mateo fue el Evangelio principal (es decir, Clemente de Alejandría, Ireneo, Eusebio y Agustín). Prácticamente no se puede encontrar apoyo temprano para favorecer a Mark como el escritor inicial del Evangelio. Además, gran parte del apoyo a la prioridad de Markan descansa sobre los hombros de las fuentes de Q, L y M. completamente conjeturadas y sin fundamento. Actualmente no existe evidencia histórica firme que respalde su existencia. Estas dos objeciones por sí solas son suficientes para que varios académicos se mantengan escépticos sobre la teoría de prioridad de Markan.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>4. Prioridad Matthean\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> La prioridad de Matthean era la posición dominante de la iglesia desde el primer siglo hasta la Ilustración y ve a Matthew como el primer sinóptico, generalmente Luke, que utilizó a Matthew, como el segundo, y Mark como el tercero. Mark es visto como una combinación o combinación abreviada de Mateo y Lucas. La predicación de Pedro también se ve como una influencia significativa en el Evangelio de Marcos, aunque esto es cierto para la mayoría de los estudiosos del Nuevo Testamento, independientemente de cómo resuelvan el problema sinóptico.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> Aunque la teoría de prioridad de Matthean fue propuesta por primera vez por H. Owen en 1764, recibió el nombre más popular, \"La hipótesis de Griesbach\", de su principal defensor, Johann J. Griesbach (1783). Desde entonces, ha recibido un considerable renacimiento de interés debido a la influencia de la publicación de William R. Farmer de El problema sinóptico en 1976.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> Al igual que el modelo de prioridad de Markan, existe un apoyo significativo para el argumento de que Mateo fue el Evangelio inicial. Primero, que Mateo fue escrito primero fue virtualmente la visión unánime de la iglesia primitiva. La opinión de la mayoría de los patrísticos, como Ireneo y Orígenes, fue que Mateo inicialmente escribió un Evangelio en hebreo o arameo que luego se tradujo al griego. Esta era la opinión de Jerome y Agustín. Además, Clemente de Alejandría declaró que el primer Evangelio escrito fue el que contenía las genealogías. No hay evidencia antigua que concluya que Marcos fue escrito antes que Mateo. Cualquier teoría de este tipo debe superar el testimonio abrumador de los primeros padres cristianos.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>En segundo lugar, esta teoría puede explicar la relación literaria que existe entre los Evangelios sinópticos sin postular documentos hipotéticos que tienen poco o ningún respaldo histórico (por ejemplo, una fuente Q). El fenómeno del acuerdo entre Matthew, Mark y Luke se explica de la siguiente manera: los acuerdos de Matthew y Luke contra Mark ocurren cuando Luke sigue a Matthew y Mark se desvía de ambas fuentes. Los acuerdos de Mateo y Marcos contra Lucas ocurren cuando Lucas se desvía de Mateo, pero Marcos no. Del mismo modo, los acuerdos vistos en Luke y Mark resultan cuando Luke se aleja de su fuente Matthean, pero Mark sigue a Luke. No se necesitan documentos hipotéticos.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> Aun así, hay razones por las que muchos estudiosos modernos del Nuevo Testamento encuentran problemática la hipótesis de Griesbach. Por ejemplo, hay ciertos acuerdos evangélicos que parecen explicarse mejor por la prioridad de Marcos. La mayoría de estos ejemplos se encuentran cuando Matthew y Mark se desvían de la cuenta de Luke y con los acuerdos de Mark-Luke contra Matthew. Sin embargo, la mayoría de estos conflictos se resuelven cuando se supone que Lucas es el segundo Evangelio escrito. Además, Mark contiene redundancias que pueden explicarse asumiendo la hipótesis de dos documentos.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Si bien muchos estudiosos creen que el problema sinóptico se resolvió mediante la hipótesis de prioridad de Markan, es posible que sea necesario reevaluar este juicio. El hecho es que todas nuestras teorías diferentes pueden poner más peso en los datos históricos de lo que está justificado. La posición de la iglesia primitiva, aunque no es definitiva, puede merecer una audiencia renovada. Sin embargo, aunque no sabemos con certeza cómo los primeros tres escritores de Evangelios posiblemente interactuaron entre sí o qué fuentes pueden haber influido en su trabajo, podemos estar seguros de que el resultado de su trabajo nos ha dado tres retratos inspirados, veraces y autoritarios. del Señor Jesucristo Escriben desde diferentes perspectivas y con diferentes énfasis teológicos, pero en su conjunto presentan un retrato complementario del Mesías \u002F Rey y el Salvador del Mundo, el Señor Jesucristo. En esto, todos los estudiantes de las Escrituras pueden confiadamente descansar. \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Artículo escrito por el Dr. Daniel L. Akin. \"El orden de los evangelios (El problema sinóptico), relatos de la resurrección\". Holman Bible Handbook (Nashville: Holman, 1992)\u003C\u002Fp>","\n\nLe problème synoptique","\n\n\u003Cp>La question de la relation entre les Évangiles est souvent discutée mais pas facilement répondue. Cela est particulièrement vrai lorsque l'attention est concentrée sur les Évangiles de Matthieu, de Marc et de Luc - les Évangiles «synoptiques» désignés populairement. \u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002F","\n\n시노픽 문제","\n\n성경의 관계에 대한 질문은 자주 논의되지만 쉽게 대답하기는 어렵습니다. 특히 마태",{"id":150,"title":151,"description":152,"featured":27,"transcript":28,"subtitle":28,"playerembed":28,"category_id":6,"slug":153,"answertype":30,"created_at":47,"updated_at":154,"thumbnail":155,"embed_thumbnail":34,"embed_icon":35,"title_es":156,"description_es":157,"playerembed_es":16,"transcript_es":16,"title_fr":158,"description_fr":159,"playerembed_fr":16,"transcript_fr":16,"title_ko":160,"description_ko":161,"playerembed_ko":16,"transcript_ko":16,"question_id":16,"category_slug":8,"category_name":-1},10,"Did the New Testament authors regard their own writings as Scripture?","\u003Cp>The authors of the New Testament did regard their writings as divinely authoritative. Many people think that the authors did not actually intend to write Scripture. They believe the authors were simply writing letters or stories, which were later treated as divinely inspired by the early Christian church. However, it is clear that the New Testament authors believed in the divine authority of their words. We can see this by looking at what they said about their writings and teachings. Though we are not able to look at all 27 books of the New Testament here, we will look at the claims made by some of the most important authors.\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>First, the authors of the New Testament viewed each other’s writings as Scripture. This suggests that they believed that divine authority had been given to them by Jesus. Paul writes in 1 Timothy 5:18, “For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and,‘The laborer deserves his wages.’”  The second quote is not found anywhere in the Old Testament, and the Greek phrase that Paul uses matches exactly the phrase in Luke 10:7. So, Paul considered Luke’s Gospel to be Scripture, on equal level with the Old Testament, since he quotes them both in the same line.\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Peter considered Paul’s letters to be Scripture. He writes, “And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:15­16). Peter clearly states in this passage that Paul’s letters are counted among the rest of the Scriptures. This is significant since earlier in the letter, Peter wrote that the readers should remember “the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles” (2 Peter 3:2). Peter is saying that the Lord gives commands through the apostles. Since Peter is an apostle, he is implying that the Lord gives commands through him.\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>Peter and Paul considered other writings in the New Testament to be Scripture, so this suggests that they believed in the divine authority of their own words. Now let’s look at how some of the most prominent authors of the New Testament viewed the authority of their own writings.\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 14:37­38, “If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.” In this passage, Paul directly addresses his own writings and calls them a command of the Lord. This is nearly a direct claim to divine inspiration. This idea of a command of the Lord is found throughout the Old Testament as a claim to direct revelation from God. For example, God gave commandments to the people of Israel through Moses (e.g. Exodus 35:4; Numbers 10:13; etc.), who spoke to the Lord “face to face, as a man speaks to his friend” (Exodus 33:11). Furthermore, Paul even declares that if anyone does not acknowledge that his words are a command of the Lord, “he is not recognized.” This shows Paul’s confidence in the authority of his words. It is also similar to the warnings\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>that God gave to the Israelites if they failed to acknowledge and follow his commandments through\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Moses (e.g. Deuteronomy 11:26­28).\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Paul claims divine authority for his words in other letters as well. 1 Thessalonians 2:13 says, “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.” Here Paul explicitly refers to the words that he and the apostles were preaching as the “word of God”. Paul appears to be claiming the same inspiration as the prophets of the Old Testament, who would begin with “thus says the Lord” or “the word of the Lord”.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>The writer of the book of Revelation, John, makes an express claim to divine inspiration. At the beginning of the book, John writes that what follows is a revelation that he received from God through an angel. He then writes, “Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and keep what is written in it, for the time is near” (Revelation 1:3). John commands the reading of this book out loud and the keeping of what is written in it. By doing this he equates his writing to the law of the Old Testament. God commanded the Israelites to read the law in the hearing of all the people, so that they could keep what was written in it (Deuteronomy 31:11­13).\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>1 John gives us another clear assertion of divine inspiration. The author of this letter writes “We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us” (1 John\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>4:6) Here the writer claims to be from God, indicating that he believed his teaching to be divinely inspired. Moreover, he claims that everyone who knows God listens to his words, and anyone who is not from God does not. This assertion is very similar to what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 14:37­38, discussed above. It is also similar to Jesus’ words to the Jewish leaders in John 8. “‘Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>is to do your father's desires’” (John 8:43­44). By stating that his words are heard by those who know God and unheard by those who do not, the author of this letter is making a claim to divine inspiration.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>There are many more instances of New Testament authors making direct or indirect claims to divine inspiration, which we do not have space to discuss here. A more in­depth inquiry would reveal that the authors paralleled Old Testament books, claimed the authority of apostolic tradition, warned of imposters, and more. We have shown, however, that at least some of the writers of the New Testament considered themselves to be writing authoritative Scripture. This is enough to disprove the view that the authors of the New Testament did not regard their own writings as Scripture.\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>SUGGESTED RESOURCES\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Those who would like to read more on this topic are encouraged to check out:\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>--- ONLINE RESOURCES --- \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Michael Kruger – 10 Misconceptions about the NT Canon: #3: “The NT Authors Did Not Think\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>They Were Writing Scripture”\u003Cbr>\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fmichaeljkruger.com\u002F10-misconceptions-about-the-nt-canon-3-the-nt-authors-did-not-think-they-were-writing-scripture\">http:\u002F\u002Fmichaeljkruger.com\u002F10-misconceptions-about-the-nt-canon-3-the-nt-authors-did-not-think-they-were-writing-scripture\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Got Questions.org – Did the writers of the New Testament regard their writings as Scripture?\u003Cbr>\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.gotquestions.org\u002FNT-authors-inspired.html\">http:\u002F\u002Fwww.gotquestions.org\u002FNT-authors-inspired.html\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Lenny Esposito – Did the New Testament Authors Know They Were Writing Scripture?\u003Cbr>\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fapologetics-notes.comereason.org\u002F2015\u002F11\u002Fdid-new-testament-authors-know-they.html\">http:\u002F\u002Fapologetics-notes.comereason.org\u002F2015\u002F11\u002Fdid-new-testament-authors-know-they.html\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>--- PRINT RESOURCES ---\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Michael Kruger – The Question of Canon\u003Cbr>\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Famzn.com\u002F0830840311\">http:\u002F\u002Famzn.com\u002F0830840311\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Norm Geisler – From God To Us: How We Got Our Bible\u003Cbr>\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\u002F\u002Famzn.com\u002F0802428827\">https:\u002F\u002Famzn.com\u002F0802428827\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\u002F\u002Famzn.com\u002F1601422504\">https:\u002F\u002Famzn.com\u002F1601422504\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>For further reading, see:\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fmichaeljkruger.com\u002F10\">http:\u002F\u002Fmichaeljkruger.com\u002F10\u003C\u002Fa>­misconceptions­about­the­nt­canon­3­the­nt­authors­did­not­think­t hey­were­writing­scripture\u002F\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate, by Michael J. Kruger\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>From God To Us: How We Got Our Bible, by Norman Geisler and William Nix\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\u002F\u002Famzn.com\u002F0802428827\">https:\u002F\u002Famzn.com\u002F0802428827\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cdiv>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fdiv>","did-the-new-testament-authors-regard-their-own-writings-as-scripture","2023-08-03T05:31:50.878Z","https:\u002F\u002Fs3.amazonaws.com\u002Ftruelife1\u002Ficons\u002F110\u002Fanswerthumbnails\u002Ffull.jpg","\n\n¿Consideraban los autores del Nuevo Testamento sus propias escrituras como Escritura?","\n\nLos autores del Nuevo Testamento sí consideraban sus escritos como autoritarios divinamente. Mucha gente piensa que los autores no pretendían realmente escribir Escritura. Creen que los autores simplemente estaban escribiendo cartas o historias, que fueron tratadas como divinamente inspiradas más tarde por la iglesia","\n\nLe Nouveau Testament les auteurs ont-ils considéré leurs propres écrits comme les Écritures ?","\n\n\u003Cp>Les auteurs du Nouveau Testament ont effectivement considéré leurs écrits comme autoritaires. Beaucoup de gens pensent que les auteurs n'avaient pas l'intention d'écrire des Saintes Écritures. Ils croient que les auteurs n'écrivaient que des lettres ou des histoires, qui ont été plus","\n\n신약서 저자들은 자신들의 성서를 성서로 여기지 않았나요?","\n\n새성경 저자들은 자신의 서가를 신성한 권위를 가지고 있다고 생각했다. 많은 사람들",{"id":163,"title":164,"description":165,"featured":166,"transcript":167,"subtitle":168,"playerembed":19,"category_id":6,"slug":169,"answertype":89,"created_at":74,"updated_at":170,"thumbnail":171,"embed_thumbnail":171,"embed_icon":35,"title_es":172,"description_es":173,"playerembed_es":174,"transcript_es":16,"title_fr":175,"description_fr":176,"playerembed_fr":16,"transcript_fr":16,"title_ko":177,"description_ko":178,"playerembed_ko":16,"transcript_ko":16,"question_id":16,"category_slug":8,"category_name":-1},49,"How Did We Get the Old Testament?","\u003Cp>Are you ready to find out what true life is? If you are, please \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002Fvideos\u002Fdo-you-have-true-life\">click here\u003C\u002Fa>.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>The Old Testament is the most widely read book in all the world, yet few people know its origin. Join TrueLife host Joshua Whitaker as he eloquently guides this meaningful discussion with Dr. Shawn Madden and Dr. Mark Rooker, who are both Old Testament Professors at Southeastern Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina.  \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>\u003Cspan>If you would like to learn more from \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002Fhome\u002Fprofessors?id=6\">Dr. Mark Rooker\u003C\u002Fa> and \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002Fhome\u002Fprofessors?id=5\">Dr. Shawn Madden\u003C\u002Fa>, you can at \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.sebts.edu\u002F\">Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary\u003C\u002Fa>.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>TrueLife.org would be more than happy to help introduce you to a pastor so you can experience the great blessing of being in a church family. Please use our \u003Ca target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.truelife.org\u002Flocations\">Church Finder\u003C\u002Fa> to easily locate and email a pastor near you.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>",true,"\u003Cp>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>HOW DID WE GET THE OLD TESTAMENT?\u003C\u002Fb> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>A Study Guide\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Ci>“The Old Testament is the most widely read book in the history of the world, it has been translated in parts or in its entirety in over two thousand languages. Throughout history people have been willing to suffer and even die for the contents.”\u003C\u002Fi>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Ci>Joshua Whitaker, Truelife host\u003C\u002Fi>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Ci>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fi>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cu>WHAT DOES THE OLD TESTAMENT CLAIM ABOUT ITSELF?\u003C\u002Fu>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Exodus 31:18, Exodus 24:4\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>“Thus saith the Lord” – Written or Oral Accounts\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cu>Pentateuch\u003C\u002Fu>: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cu>Historical\u003C\u002Fu>: 1st & 2nd Kings, 1st & 2nd Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Ester\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cu>Poetical\u003C\u002Fu>: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cu>Minor Prophets\u003C\u002Fu>: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The writings of Moses: Torah (Law)\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cu>IS THERE ANY OUTSIDE EVIDENCE?\u003C\u002Fu>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Josephus:\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-1st Century Jewish Historian\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-General for Jewish forces\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-In the Galilee region\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-Captured\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-Wrote about the Jewish people\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cu>How Josephus classified the Old Testament\u003C\u002Fu>: Books of Moses, Prophet, The Writings (Psalms)\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cu>How Jesus classified the Old Testament (Luke 24:44)\u003C\u002Fu>: The Law of Moses, The Prophets, The Psalms\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cb>\u003Cb>\u003Cu>\u003Cbr>MANUSCRIPTS\u003C\u002Fu>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fb>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-The Maserite scribes counted: Letters, Words, and Lines\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>-Older copies were respectfully disposed\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003C\u002Fp>","The Old Testament is the most widely read book in all the world, yet few people know its origin. Join TrueLife host Joshua Whitaker as he eloquently guides this meaningful discussion with Dr. Shawn Madden and Dr. Mark Rooker","how-did-we-get-the-old-testament","2023-08-03T06:22:58.610Z","https:\u002F\u002Ftruelifeorg.s3.amazonaws.com\u002Fresources\u002FScreen%20Shot%202021-08-24%20at%207.31.18%20AM.png","¿Cómo obtuvimos el Antiguo Testamento?","\u003Cp>El Antiguo Testamento es el libro más leído en todo el mundo, sin embargo, pocas personas conocen su origen. Acompañe al anfitrión de TrueLife Joshua Whitaker mientras guía elocuentemente esta discusión significativa con el Dr. Shawn Madden y el Dr. Mark Rooker\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>¿Está listo para descubrir qué es la verdadera vida? Si es así, haga clic aquí. \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>El Antiguo Testamento es el libro más leído en todo el mundo, sin embargo, pocas personas conocen su origen. Únase al anfitrión de TrueLife Joshua Whitaker mientras guía elocuentemente esta discusión significativa con el Dr. Shawn Madden y el Dr. Mark Rooker, ambos profesores del Antiguo Testamento en el Seminario Southeastern en Wake Forest, Carolina del Norte. \u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>Si desea obtener más información del Dr. Mark Rooker y el Dr. Shawn Madden, puede hacerlo en el Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.\u003C\u002Fp> \u003Cp>TrueLife.org estaría más que feliz de ayudarlo a presentarle a un pastor para que pueda experimentar la gran bendición de estar en una familia de la iglesia. Utilice nuestro Buscador de iglesias para localizar y enviar por correo electrónico fácilmente a un pastor cerca de usted.\u003C\u002Fp>","\u003Ciframe src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fplayer.vimeo.com\u002Fvideo\u002F464436946\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"autoplay; fullscreen\" allowfullscreen>\u003C\u002Fiframe>","\n\nComment avons-nous eu l'Ancien Testament?","\n\nÊtes-vous prêt à découvrir ce qu'est la vraie vie ? Si vous l'êtes, veuillez cliquer ici.\n\nLe Livre de l'Exode est le livre le plus lu au monde, et pourtant peu de gens connaissent son origine. Rejoignez Joshua Whitaker, l'animateur de TrueLife,","\n\n우리가 오래전 성경을 얻은 것은 어떻게 되었을까?","\n\n진실 삶의 정의를 알고 싶으신가요? 그렇다면 여기를 클릭해주세요.\n\n오래된 성경",{"id":180,"title":181,"description":182,"featured":27,"transcript":28,"subtitle":28,"playerembed":28,"category_id":6,"slug":183,"answertype":30,"created_at":61,"updated_at":184,"thumbnail":185,"embed_thumbnail":34,"embed_icon":35,"title_es":186,"description_es":187,"playerembed_es":16,"transcript_es":16,"title_fr":188,"description_fr":16,"playerembed_fr":16,"transcript_fr":16,"title_ko":189,"description_ko":16,"playerembed_ko":16,"transcript_ko":16,"question_id":68,"category_slug":8,"category_name":-1},21,"Sermon: What Did Jesus Believe About the Bible? (Matthew 5:17-18)","\u003Cp>Originally published as Daniel L. Akin, “What Did Jesus Believe About the Bible?” \u003Cem>Southern Baptist Journal of Theology\u003C\u002Fem> (Vol. 5, No. 2, Summer 2001).\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>--------------------\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Introduction\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>On June 14, 2000 Southern Baptists met in Orlando, Florida for their annual meeting. The most important issue on the agenda was the \u003Cem>2000 Baptist Faith and Message\u003C\u002Fem>. While the 1925 and 1963 confessions had served us well, many believed certain theological currents and trends made it wise to reconsider, and where necessary, revise the 1963 statement. Article I addresses the Scriptures. The following is the statement that the convention overwhelmingly adopted.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s rev-elation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. \u003Cem>Therefore,\u003C\u002Fem> \u003Cem>all Scripture is totally true and trust-worthy. It reveals the principles by which God \u003C\u002Fem>judges us, and therefore\u003Cem> \u003C\u002Fem>is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.1\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>This is a fine statement, rooted both in Scripture and the language of historic Baptist confessions. However, from its initial presentation this statement ignited a firestorm of protests among a segment of our denomination. In particular they decried 2 points: (1) Instead of saying the Bible “is\u003Cem>the record of God’s revelation\u003C\u002Fem>” as did the 1963 statement, the 2000 statement affirmed that “the Bible \u003Cem>is God’s revelation\u003C\u002Fem> …”; (2) Instead of saying “the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ,” as did the 1963 \u003Cem>Baptist Faith & \u003C\u002Fem>\u003Cem>Message\u003C\u002Fem>, the 2000 statement affirms “All scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.” Both revisions were viewed by its authors and the convention as a safeguard against neo-orthodox manipulation of the 1963 statement, which manifested itself in two ways: (1) in claiming that only some of the Bible is God’s revelation, and (2) in saying that the teachings of Jesus recorded in Scripture at times should, and even must, be set in opposition to other biblical texts and authors.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>During debate at the Convention a pastor from Texas said to the astonishment of thousands “that while the Bible is true and trustworthy … the Bible is still just a book.”2 Later in a telephone interview he told Baptist Press, “As I shared, I believe the Bible is a book that God has given us for guidance. It’s a book that \u003Cem>points us\u003C\u002Fem> to the truth. We’re not supposed to have a relationship with a book.” These comments, confusing and misguided as they are, were mild, in comparison to what followed. In an editorial in the \u003Cem>Baptist Stan\u003C\u002Fem>\u003Cem>dard\u003C\u002Fem>, the state paper of Texas, the following was written:\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>If the Bible alone is our primary guide, then all parts of the Bible receive equal weight. It is a flat Bible. For example, the words of Moses, Jesus and the Apostle Paul are equally authoritative. If, however, Jesus is the guide to interpreting Scripture, then Jesus’ words and clear actions take precedence over their apparent discrepancies with other Scripture passages, such as the Old Testament codes and some of Paul’s admonitions.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Some Scriptures, especially portions of the Old Testament, clearly stand in paradox to Jesus’ life and teachings, also recorded in Scripture. Other passages, such as Paul’s writings, seem to be at odds with each other, and Jesus’ words and actions clarify and separate the timeless and universal from the culturally specific.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Baptists who place Jesus over the Bible still affirm the full authority of the Bible upon their lives. They do not exalt personal experience over Scripture; rather, they base their decisions upon Scripture. But some passages are paradoxical; they say different things about the same subject. In those occasions, Jesus-first people look to Jesus for help in understanding what the biblical norm means for help in applying the Scripture to their lives.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>After this rather convoluted and sad exhibition of sloppy theology, the editor concludes:\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>So, the SBC leaders—who trumpeted “biblical inerrancy” as a battle cry to gain and implement control of the convention during the past 20 years—- have a high view of Scripture, after all. In fact, it’s higher than we thought. Rather than a Trinity, they worship a defacto Quartet: Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Holy Bible, with the Bible acting as the arbiter of the other three.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>This is dangerous, for several reasons.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>First, it refutes orthodoxy—which asserts the primacy of the Godhead: Father, Son and Holy Spirit—by exalting the Bible to near-divinity and supplanting the influence of Jesus.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Second, by elevating a thing, as precious and authoritative as the Bible is, to such lofty status, it at least implies idolatry, the worship of something other than God.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Third, it denigrates the influence of Jesus and the power of the Holy Spirit to work in lives and guide them toward God’s will.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Fourth, it begs a vital question: Who then is to provide the authoritative interpretation of all Scripture?\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>If Scripture stands over Jesus, then the teachings and actions of Jesus are inadequate.3\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>A local Louisville pastor added, “Not all Scripture rises to the full level of Christ.” Later the “BGCT Seminary Study Committee Report” said the \u003Cem>2000 Baptist \u003C\u002Fem>\u003Cem>Faith & Message \u003C\u002Fem>makes the Bible “equal to God.” Even the occasionally evangelical \u003Cem>Christianity Today \u003C\u002Fem>chimed in, saying the 2000 statement “is poorer without the rich Christo-centric language of the earlier statement.”4 Strangely neither this editor nor any other detractor noted that “Jesus as the criterion” does not appear in the 1925 statement or any other Baptist Confession! As R. Albert Mohler, Jr. pointed out,\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The statement [that Jesus is the criterion] was not simply eliminated. It was replaced with a sentence that is far more in keeping with historic confessions of faith. The new sentence affirms that “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the pinnacle of divine revelation.” The language of the 1963 statement is not found in any historic confession of faith, nor did it appear in the 1925 \u003Cem>Baptist Faith and Message\u003C\u002Fem> as adopted by the SBC…. The 2000 revision is even more Christo-logically focused than the 1963 statement, and its Christological hermeneutic is stronger, not weaker. In keeping with historic evangelical and Baptist theology, we understand that every single passage of the Bible, in the Old Testament or in the New Testament, is a testimony to Christ. Every word is true, every word is fulfilled in Christ, and Christ affirmed every word of Scripture as fully authoritative.5\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>What should we conclude from the above? Have we “demoted Jesus” and improperly elevated the Bible to a status “equal to God”? Though numerous avenues could be profitably pursued, I want to examine just one issue and per-haps the most important one. I want to try and answer the question, “What did Jesus believe about the Bible? What was the Savior’s view of Scripture?” After all, as the early Clark Pinnock rightly says, “Unreserved commitment to Jesus requires us to look at the Bible through his eyes.”6 We shall call to the witness stand several statements made by our Lord, but in particular I want to give attention to Matthew 5:17-18. A careful examination of this text reveals two basic truths concerning Jesus’ view of the Bible.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Jesus Believed that All the Scriptures Point to Him (5:17)\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>In the greatest sermon ever preached, the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus speaks on the theme of God’s kingdom (Matt 5:17-20). These verses serve as the introduction to the “six great antitheses” of 5:21-48. They also explain how we can live out the beatitudes of 5:3-12 and be the salt of the earth and the light of the world (5:13-16). Matthew 5:17 introduces us to the high view of Scripture held by Jesus. Clearly what is said here pertains to the Old Testament Scriptures. Nevertheless, what He \u003Cem>affirmed \u003C\u002Fem>about the Old Testament He also \u003Cem>promised \u003C\u002Fem>concerning the New Testament. In John 16:12-15 Jesus said,\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. There-fore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>First, Jesus introduced teachings that were new and striking. Indeed, as John 7:46 states, “No man ever spoke like this man.” Some may have concluded that His teaching constituted a decisive break with the Old Testament Scriptures. That is certainly the judgment of some Baptists today. “Not so,” says Jesus. “Do not think (or consider) that I came to destroy (annul, abrogate, disintegrate, demolish.) the law.” J. A. Alexander notes the idea is that of “the destruction of a whole by the complete separation of its parts, as when a house is taken down by being taken to pieces.”7 Jesus says I did not come to tear apart or dismantle the law and prophets (a reference to the OT Scriptures of His day). I did not come to \u003Cem>destroy\u003C\u002Fem> (repeated for emphasis) but to fulfill. Note that the antithesis is not between “abolish” and “keep” but between “abolish” and “fulfill.”\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Second, Jesus provides not only an emphatic denial but also a positive declaration concerning the purpose for his coming—he came to fulfill, complete the Scriptures. To set them aside was never His agenda. To bring them to fulfillment and fruition was why He came. Don Carson has it right when he says,\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Jesus fulfills the entire Old Testament in many ways. Because they point toward him, he has certainly not come to abolish them. Rather, he has come to fulfill them in a rich diversity of ways.… Jesus does not conceive of his life and ministry in terms of \u003Cem>opposition\u003C\u002Fem> to the Old Testament, but in terms of \u003Cem>bringing to fruition \u003C\u002Fem>that toward which it points.\u003Cem> \u003C\u002Fem>Thus the law and the prophets, far from being abolished, find their valid continuity in terms of their outworking in Jesus. The detailed prescriptions of the Old Testament may well be superceded, because whatever is prophetic must be in some sense provisional. \u003Cem>But whatever\u003C\u002Fem> \u003Cem>is prophetic likewise discovers its legitimate continuity in the happy arrival of that toward which it has pointed\u003C\u002Fem>.8\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>That our Lord would have affirmed that “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation” (which concludes the \u003Cem>Baptist Faith & \u003C\u002Fem>\u003Cem>Message 2000 \u003C\u002Fem>statement on Scripture) can hardly be questioned:\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>John 5:39—“You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of me.”\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Luke 24:25-27—“Then He said to them, ‘O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?’ And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.”\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Luke 24:44-45—“Then He said to them, ‘These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.’ And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.”\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>This truth that Jesus Christ is the theme of the entire Bible is well-captured in the anonymous poem, “I find my Lord in the Book”:\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>I find my Lord in the Bible where ever I chance to look, He is the theme of the Bible the center and heart of the Book;\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>He is the Rose of Sharon, He is the Lily fair, Where ever I open my Bible the Lord of the Book is there.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>He, at the Book’s beginning, gave to the earth its form, He is the Ark of shelter bearing the brunt of the storm,\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The Burning Bush of the desert, the budding of Aaron’s Rod,\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Where ever I look in the Bible I see the Son of God.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The Ram upon Mt. Moriah, the Lad-der from earth to sky,\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The Scarlet Cord in the window, and the Serpent lifted high,\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The smitten rock in the desert, the Shepherd with staff and crook, The face of my Lord I discover where ever I open the Book.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>He is the Seed of the Woman, the Savior Virgin-born; He is the Son of David, whom men rejected with scorn,\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>His garments of grace and of beauty the stately Aaron deck,\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>He is a priest forever, for He is Melchizedek.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Lord of eternal glory whom John, the Apostle saw; Light of the golden city, Lamb without spot or flaw,\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Bridegroom coming at midnight, for whom the Virgins look.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Where ever I open my Bible, I find my Lord in the Book.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Jesus Believed that All the Scriptures Were Perfect in Every Detail (5:18)\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Verse 17 affirms a \u003Cem>promise-\u003C\u002Fem>fulfillment understanding of Jesus’ view of Scripture, not a \u003Cem>promise-abolish\u003C\u002Fem> paradigm, while verse 18 provides the Christological and theological rationale. Jesus introduces verse 18 with a note of personal authority that transcended the authority of all other rabbis. The word \u003Cem>amen\u003C\u002Fem> variously translated as “assuredly,” “truly,” or “I tell you the truth” alerts us that the words that will follow are of paramount importance and authority. The phrase “until heaven and earth pass away” means until the end of the age, as long as the present world order persists. One jot (\u003Cem>iôta\u003C\u002Fem>) is a reference to the \u003Cem>yod\u003C\u002Fem>, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet, similar in shape to our apostrophe. One tittle (\u003Cem>keraia\u003C\u002Fem>) is the smallest projection or part of a Hebrew letter, similar to that which distinguishes our “F” from an upside down “L.” The phrase “will by no means” (\u003Cem>ou me\u003C\u002Fem>) is a double negative used to emphasize that God’s law shall not pass away until all is fulfilled. In the Lukan parallel we read, “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail” (Luke 16:17).\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Jesus affirms the reliability and truthfulness of the Scriptures in the strongest possible language. He is not saying that the Old Testament contains some truth or that it becomes truth when men and women have a significant encounter with it. As he affirms in John 10:35, “the Scripture cannot be broken.” As He proclaims in prayer to the Father in John 17:17, “Your word is truth.” The outstanding scholar H. C. G. Moule says it well, “[Jesus] absolutely trusted the Bible; and though there are in it things inexplicable and intricate that have puzzled me so much, I am going, not in a blind sense, but reverently, to trust the Book because of Him.”9\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>I am no fan of liberal\u002Fantisupernatural theology or destructive biblical criticism. I am unimpressed with its worldview, bias, and skewed methodologies. Still, we can learn from those with whom we disagree, and sometimes a breath of scholarly fresh air and honesty blows our way from this camp. When it comes to what Jesus and the Church believed about the Bible, some of our moderate Baptist brothers and sisters would do well to listen to some of their heroes:\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Rudolf Bultmann—“Jesus agreed always with the scribes of his time in accepting without question \u003Cem>the authority of the (Old Testament) law \u003C\u002Fem>…\u003Cem> \u003C\u002Fem>the idea that Jesus had attacked the authority of the law was wholly unknown to the Christian community.”10\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Emil Brunner—“The doctrine of Verbal Inspiration was already known to pre-Christian Judaism and was probably also taken over by Paul and the rest of the Apostles.”11\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Kirsopp Lake—“It is a mistake often made by educated persons who happen to have but little knowledge of historical theology to suppose that fundamentalism is a new and strange form of thought. It is nothing of the kind; it is the partial and uneducated survival of a theology which was once universally held by all Christians. How many were there, for instance, in Christian churches in the eighteenth century who doubted the infallible inspiration of the Scripture? A few perhaps, but very few. No, the fundamentalist may be wrong; I think that he is. But it is we who have departed from the tradition, not he; and I am sorry for anyone who tries to argue with a fundamentalist on the basis of authority. The \u003Cem>Bible\u003C\u002Fem> and the corpus theologicum of the Church are on the fundamentalist side” [italics added].12\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Four notable examples are cited else-where by another author—“H.J. Cadbury, Harvard professor and one of the more extreme New Testament critics of the last generation, once declared that he was far more sure as a mere historical fact that Jesus held to the common Jewish view of an infallible Bible than that Jesus believed in His own messiahship. Adolf Harnack, the greatest church historian of modern times, insists that Christ was one with His apostles, the Jews, and the entire early Church in complete commitment to the infallible authority of the Bible. John Knox, author of what is perhaps the most highly regarded recent life of Christ, states that there can be no question that this view of the Bible was taught by our Lord Himself. The liberal critic, F. C. Grant, concludes that in the New Testament, ‘It is everywhere taken for granted that Scripture is trust-worthy, infallible, and inerrant.’”13\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>When we survey our Lord’s teaching in the Gospels we discover that the judgments of these scholars is confirmed. Jesus consistently treated the historical narratives of the Old Testament as straightforward records of fact. He referred to Abel (Luke 11:51), Noah (Matt 24:37-39), Abraham (John 8:56), Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt 10:15, 11:23-24), Lot (Luke 17:28-32), Isaac and Jacob (Matt 8:11), the manna (John 6:31), the wilderness serpent (John 3:14), David (Matt 22:43), Solomon (Matt 6:29, 12:42), Elijah (Luke 4:25-26), Elisha (Luke 4:27), Jonah (Matt 12:39-41), and Moses (Matt 8:4), among others. Nowhere is there the slightest hint that he questioned the historicity or accuracy of the accounts.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>It is interesting to note that Jesus often chose as the basis of his teaching those very stories that many modern skeptics find unacceptable (e.g., Adam and Eve, Noah’s flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, and Jonah). For Jesus, Scripture was the final court of appeal in his disputes with the Pharisees and Sadducees. In his battle against Satan in the wilderness, Jesus cited scriptural statements as arguments against which no further argument was possible (Matt 4:1-11). Jesus might set aside or reject the Rabbinic or Pharisaical interpretation of the Old Testament (cf. Matt 5:21-48), but He never questioned its authority or truthfulness.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The early Pinnock saw this clearly when he wrote,\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Jesus’ doctrine of inspiration receives expression in the Sermon on the Mount. Before setting forth his ethical instructions, Jesus explained his intention. “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Mt. 5:17). Evidently he does not want us to think that the thrust of his teaching is to violate or even to devalue Old Testament revelation. The saying which is also contained in Luke (16:17) has an entirely genuine ring to it. Jesus’ enemies were eager to pin an “antinomian” label on him if they could. Therefore, Jesus made it clear that the object of his criticisms was not the Bible, but the traditions which the Rabbis had built as a fence around it, traditions which in practice enjoyed an authority actually higher than the written Word. He assures us that his confidence in the divine character of Scripture does not stop short even of its smallest elements. “Not an iota, not a dot, will pass” (Mt. 5:18). He issues a stern warning: “Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (v. 19).14\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Liberal scholar James Barr is incorrect when he writes,\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Jesus took Jewish scripture as it was, as his contemporaries did, and he used it as they did in this respect, as a source through which authoritative intimations of divine truth had been given. Thus if Jesus refers to a passage in Exodus or in Deuteronomy with the words “Moses said,” it is quite mistaken to read this as if he was placing his own full messianic and divine authority behind the assertion that these books were actually written by the historical Moses. No such question entered his head and there is nothing in the Gospels that suggests that his teaching was intended to cope with it. Historical questions interested him little.15\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Jesus said, “Not a jot or tittle.…”\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Former Southern professor, Alan Culpepper, got it wrong when he said,\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Jesus had remarkably little to say about the nature of Scripture … [and that] Jesus demands [in the Sermon on the Mount] a standard of righteousness higher than that set by the Hebrew Scriptures and the traditions of the Pharisees.16\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The traditions of the Pharisees yes, the Hebrew Scriptures no way. Our Lord said, “Not a jot or tittle.…”\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Former Southern professor Frank Stagg is off course when he says,\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Those who say the Bible is inerrant are lying … [and] inerrancy misses the point. If we follow Christ we recognize variant perspectives; we see competing perspectives. You can’t go north and south at the same time and Jesus didn’t try to. He affirmed much but He rejected much.17\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The Savior said, “Not a jot or a tittle.…”\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Former Southern professor Henlee Barnette was simply wrong when he said,\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Col>\u003Cli>The Bible is errant with many self-contradictions.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>The Bible has errors in the field of science.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>The Bible is not historically accurate.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>The Bible is errant as to cosmol-ogy.18\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Fol>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Again, our Lord Jesus Christ said, “Not a jot or a tittle.…”\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Conclusion\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>My initial theology was formed and influenced by Clark Pinnock. Few lament his theological disintegration more than I. Earlier in his life, he articulated the crux of the matter concerning the relationship between Jesus and the Bible with crystal clarity:\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Shall we follow Jesus in his view of Scripture? In the light of this evidence the question calls for another. How can a Christian even consider \u003Cem>not \u003C\u002Fem>doing so? Our Lord’s view of\u003Cem> \u003C\u002Fem>inspiration was not an incidental tenet on the border of his theology. His belief in the truthfulness of the Old Testament was the rock on which he based his own sense of vocation and the validity of much of his teachings. The question about the inspiration of Scripture really boils down to the issue of Christology. It is impossible to affirm his authority while at the same time seeking to evade his teachings regarding the divine authority of the Bible. If Christ’s claim to be the Son of God is true, his person guarantees the truth of all the rest of his teachings as well. So long as Jesus Christ is confessed, honored, and adored, we may confidently expect a high view of Scripture to persist in the church. And in the light of a considerable defection from that view amongst professed Christians today we boldly appeal for a return to a proper view of the Bible on the basis of the massive fact of our Lord’s doctrine of inspiration.19\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>In my early days at Southern, I had lunch with a former professor. Even though we held significantly different theologies, he was always gracious and supportive of me and I enjoyed the time of fellowship with him. As we sat down to eat he looked at me and said, “I want to ask you a question and I mean no offense.” I replied that he could ask me anything he wished, and his question was this, “How did you turn out theologically the way that you are? I mean, why do you think theologically like you do?” I told him I was not offended by the question at all, but I did not think that my answer would be very satisfying. I shared that when I was a little boy at about the age of eight, I trusted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. As I grew in the faith, I came to understand that to be a Christian meant to live under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and that His Lordship should permeate every area of our lives. His Lordship included what I should think about all matters of theology, including the Bible. I told him that as I had studied Jesus’ view of the Bible, I came to the conclusion that I could do nothing other than hold to its complete truthfulness and reliability. To be anything other than that would be to set aside the Lordship of Jesus Christ. That professor simply responded by saying, “I have never thought of it like that before, but it does make a lot of sense.”\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>L. R. Scarborough was a great Texas Baptist who succeeded his hero, B. H. Carroll, as president at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. In his book \u003Cem>Gospel Message, \u003C\u002Fem>Scarborough records in moving and memorable words the death of this Texas Titan:\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>B. H. Carroll, the greatest man I ever knew, as he was about to die, a few days before he died, expecting me, as he wanted me, to succeed him as president of the seminary, I was in his room one day and he pulled him-self up by my chair with his hands and looked me in the face. There were times when he looked like he was forty feet high. And he looked into my face and said, “My boy, on this Hill orthodoxy, the old truth is making one of its last stands and I want to deliver to you a charge and I do it in the blood of Jesus Christ.” He said, “You will be elected president of this seminary. I want you, if there ever comes heresy in your faculty, to take it to your faculty. If they won’t hear you, take it to the trustees. If they won’t hear you take it to the conventions that appointed them. If they won’t hear you, take it to the common Baptists. They will hear you. And,” he said, “I charge you in the name of Jesus Christ to keep it lashed to the old Gospel of Jesus Christ.” As long as I have influence in that institution, by the grace of God I will stand by the old Book.20\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>We gladly stand with this Texas Baptist.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Endnotes\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>1Exod 24:4; Deut 4:1-2; 17:19; Josh 8:34; Ps 19:7-10; 119:11, 89, 105, 140; Isa 34:16; 40:8; Jer 15:16; 36; Matt 5:17-18; 22:29; Luke 21:33; 24:44-46; John 5:39; 16:13-15; 17:17; Acts 2:16ff.; 17:11; Rom 15:4; 16:25-26; 2 Tim 3:15-17; Heb 1:1-2, 4:12; 1 Pet 1:25; 2 Pet 1:19-21.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>2Todd Starnes, “6 Words: ‘Defining Moment’ between Conservative & Moderate Baptists,” \u003Cem>Baptist Press\u003C\u002Fem>, 21 June 2000.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>3Marv Knox, “Editorial,” \u003Cem>Baptist Standard, \u003C\u002Fem>19 June 2000\u003Cem>.\u003C\u002Fem>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>4Editorial, “Do Good Fences Make Good Baptists?,” \u003Cem>Christianity Today\u003C\u002Fem>, 7 August 2000, 36.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>5Speaking for the \u003Cem>Baptist Faith and Message \u003C\u002Fem>study committee at the 2000 Southern Baptist Convention in Orlando, Florida, June 14, 2000.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>6Clark Pinnock, \u003Cem>“The Inspiration of Scripture and the Authority of Jesus Christ,” \u003C\u002Fem>in \u003Cem>God’s Inerrant Word\u003C\u002Fem>, John Warwick Montgomery, ed. (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1974), 202.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>7J. A. Alexander, \u003Cem>The Gospel according to \u003C\u002Fem>\u003Cem>Matthew \u003C\u002Fem>(1860; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980) 126.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>8D. A. Carson, \u003Cem>Sermon on the Mount\u003C\u002Fem> (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982) 37.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>9René Pache, \u003Cem>The Inspiration and Authority \u003C\u002Fem>\u003Cem>of Scripture \u003C\u002Fem>(Chicago: Moody, 1969) 223.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>10Rudolf Bultmann, \u003Cem>Jesus and the Word\u003C\u002Fem>, trans. L. P. Smith and E. H. Lantero (London: Scribner, 1958) 61, 63.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>11Emil Brunner, \u003Cem>The Christian Doctrine of \u003C\u002Fem>\u003Cem>God \u003C\u002Fem>(London: Lutterworth, 1949) 107.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>12Kirsopp Lake, \u003Cem>The Religion of Yesterday and Tomorrow \u003C\u002Fem>(Boston: Houghton, 1926), 61.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>13Kenneth Kantzer, “Christ and Scripture,” \u003Cem>His \u003C\u002Fem>26.4 (1966) 16-20.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>14Pinnock, 205.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>15James Barr, \u003Cem>Beyond Fundamentalism \u003C\u002Fem>(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984) 11.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>16R. Alan Culpepper, “Jesus’ View of Scripture,” in \u003Cem>The Unfettered Word,\u003C\u002Fem> ed. Robison B. James (Waco: Word, 1987) 26-27.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>17Relma Hargus, “Retired Seminary Professor Advises Baptists to Use Bible as Jesus Did,”\u003Cem>Baptists Today\u003C\u002Fem>, 23 May 1996, 8.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>18Henlee Barnette, “The Heresy of Inerrancy Continues to Plague Southern Baptists,” \u003Cem>Baptists Today\u003C\u002Fem>, 21 Sept 1995, 16.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>19Pinnock, 215.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp> \u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>20L. R. Scarborough, \u003Cem>Gospel Message\u003C\u002Fem> (Nashville: Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1922) 227-228.\u003C\u002Fp>","sermon-what-did-jesus-believe-about-the-bible-matthew-5-17","2026-03-06T02:49:29.352Z","https:\u002F\u002Fs3.amazonaws.com\u002Ftruelife1\u002Ficons\u002F25\u002Fanswerthumbnails\u002Ffull.jpg","\n\nSermón: ¿Qué creía Jesús acerca de la Biblia? (Mateo 5:17-18)","\u003Cp>Originalmente publicado como Daniel L. Akin, “¿Qué creía Jesús sobre la Biblia?” \u003Cem>Southern Baptist Journal of Theology\u003C\u002Fem> (Vol. 5, No. 2, Verano 2001).\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>--------------------\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Introducción\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>El 14 de junio de 2000, los bautistas del sur se reunieron en Orlando, Florida, para su reunión anual. El tema más importante en la agenda fue la \u003Cem>Fe y Mensaje Bautista de 2000\u003C\u002Fem>. Aunque las confesiones de 1925 y 1963 nos habían servido bien, muchos creían que ciertas corrientes y tendencias teológicas hacían prudente reconsiderar, y donde fuera necesario, revisar la declaración de 1963. El Artículo I aborda las Escrituras. A continuación se presenta la declaración que la convención adoptó abrumadoramente.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>La Santa Biblia fue escrita por hombres divinamente inspirados y es la revelación de Dios de Sí mismo al hombre. Es un tesoro perfecto de instrucción divina. Tiene a Dios por autor, la salvación por su fin, y la verdad, sin mezcla de error, por su contenido. \u003Cem>Por lo tanto,\u003C\u002Fem> \u003Cem>toda la Escritura es totalmente verdadera y confiable. Revela los principios por los cuales Dios\u003C\u002Fem> nos juzga, y por lo tanto\u003Cem> \u003C\u002Fem>es, y permanecerá hasta el fin del mundo, el verdadero centro de la unión cristiana, y el estándar supremo por el cual toda conducta humana, credos y opiniones religiosas deben ser probados. Toda la Escritura es un testimonio de Cristo, quien es Él mismo el foco de la revelación divina.1\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Esta es una excelente declaración, arraigada tanto en la Escritura como en el lenguaje de las confesiones bautistas históricas. Sin embargo, desde su presentación inicial, esta declaración desató una tormenta de protestas entre un segmento de nuestra denominación. En particular, deploraron 2 puntos: (1) En lugar de decir que la Biblia “es\u003Cem> el registro de la revelación de Dios\u003C\u002Fem>” como lo hacía la declaración de 1963, la declaración de 2000 afirmó que “la Biblia \u003Cem>es la revelación de Dios\u003C\u002Fem> …”; (2) En lugar de decir “el criterio por el cual la Biblia debe ser interpretada es Jesucristo”, como lo hacía la \u003Cem>Fe y Mensaje Bautista\u003C\u002Fem> de 1963, la declaración de 2000 afirma “Toda la Escritura es un testimonio de Cristo, quien es Él mismo el foco de la revelación divina”. Ambas revisiones fueron vistas por sus autores y la convención como una salvaguarda contra la manipulación neortodoxa de la declaración de 1963, que se manifestó de dos maneras: (1) en afirmar que solo algunas partes de la Biblia son la revelación de Dios, y (2) en decir que las enseñanzas de Jesús registradas en la Escritura a veces deben, e incluso deben, ponerse en oposición a otros textos y autores bíblicos.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Durante el debate en la Convención, un pastor de Texas dijo para asombro de miles “que aunque la Biblia es verdadera y confiable … la Biblia sigue siendo solo un libro”.2 Más tarde, en una entrevista telefónica, le dijo a Baptist Press: “Como compartí, creo que la Biblia es un libro que Dios nos ha dado para guía. Es un libro que \u003Cem>nos apunta\u003C\u002Fem> a la verdad. No se supone que tengamos una relación con un libro”. Estos comentarios, confusos y equivocados como son, fueron leves en comparación con lo que siguió. En un editorial en el \u003Cem>Baptist Standard\u003C\u002Fem>, el periódico estatal de Texas, se escribió lo siguiente:\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Si la Biblia sola es nuestra guía principal, entonces todas las partes de la Biblia reciben igual peso. Es una Biblia plana. Por ejemplo, las palabras de Moisés, Jesús y el apóstol Pablo son igualmente autoritativas. Sin embargo, si Jesús es la guía para interpretar la Escritura, entonces las palabras y acciones claras de Jesús toman precedencia sobre sus aparentes discrepancias con otros pasajes de la Escritura, como los códigos del Antiguo Testamento y algunas admoniciones de Pablo.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Algunas Escrituras, especialmente porciones del Antiguo Testamento, claramente están en paradoja con la vida y enseñanzas de Jesús, también registradas en la Escritura. Otros pasajes, como los escritos de Pablo, parecen estar en desacuerdo entre sí, y las palabras y acciones de Jesús aclaran y separan lo eterno y universal de lo culturalmente específico.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Los bautistas que colocan a Jesús por encima de la Biblia aún afirman la plena autoridad de la Biblia sobre sus vidas. No exaltan la experiencia personal por encima de la Escritura; más bien, basan sus decisiones en la Escritura. Pero algunos pasajes son paradójicos; dicen cosas diferentes sobre el mismo tema. En esas ocasiones, las personas que ponen a Jesús primero miran a Jesús para obtener ayuda en entender qué significa la norma bíblica para ayudar en la aplicación de la Escritura a sus vidas.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Después de esta exhibición bastante enredada y triste de teología descuidada, el editor concluye:\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Entonces, los líderes de la SBC —quienes proclamaron “la inerrancia bíblica” como un grito de batalla para ganar y implementar el control de la convención durante los últimos 20 años— tienen, después de todo, una alta visión de la Escritura. De hecho, es más alta de lo que pensábamos. En lugar de una Trinidad, adoran un Cuarteto de facto: Padre, Hijo, Espíritu Santo y Santa Biblia, con la Biblia actuando como el árbitro de los otros tres.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Esto es peligroso, por varias razones.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Primero, refuta la ortodoxia —que afirma la primacía de la Deidad: Padre, Hijo y Espíritu Santo— al exaltar la Biblia a una casi divinidad y suplantar la influencia de Jesús.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Segundo, al elevar una cosa, por preciosa y autoritativa que sea la Biblia, a tal estatus elevado, al menos implica idolatría, la adoración de algo que no es Dios.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Tercero, denigra la influencia de Jesús y el poder del Espíritu Santo para obrar en las vidas y guiarlas hacia la voluntad de Dios.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Cuarto, plantea una pregunta vital: ¿Quién, entonces, proporcionará la interpretación autoritativa de toda la Escritura?\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Si la Escritura está por encima de Jesús, entonces las enseñanzas y acciones de Jesús son inadecuadas.3\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Un pastor local de Louisville agregó: “No toda la Escritura alcanza el nivel pleno de Cristo”. Más tarde, el “Informe del Comité de Estudio de Seminarios BGCT” dijo que la \u003Cem>Fe y Mensaje Bautista de 2000\u003C\u002Fem> hace de la Biblia “igual a Dios”. Incluso el ocasionalmente evangélico \u003Cem>Christianity Today\u003C\u002Fem> se sumó, diciendo que la declaración de 2000 “es más pobre sin el rico lenguaje cristocéntrico de la declaración anterior”.4 Extrañamente, ni este editor ni ningún otro detractor notó que “Jesús como el criterio” no aparece en la declaración de 1925 ni en ninguna otra Confesión Bautista. Como señaló R. Albert Mohler, Jr.,\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>La declaración [de que Jesús es el criterio] no fue simplemente eliminada. Fue reemplazada por una oración que está mucho más en sintonía con las confesiones históricas de fe. La nueva oración afirma que “Toda la Escritura es un testimonio de Cristo, quien es Él mismo la cúspide de la revelación divina”. El lenguaje de la declaración de 1963 no se encuentra en ninguna confesión histórica de fe, ni apareció en la \u003Cem>Fe y Mensaje Bautista\u003C\u002Fem> de 1925 adoptada por la SBC…. La revisión de 2000 es aún más centrada en Cristo que la declaración de 1963, y su hermenéutica cristológica es más fuerte, no más débil. De acuerdo con la teología evangélica y bautista histórica, entendemos que cada pasaje de la Biblia, en el Antiguo Testamento o en el Nuevo Testamento, es un testimonio de Cristo. Cada palabra es verdadera, cada palabra se cumple en Cristo, y Cristo afirmó cada palabra de la Escritura como plenamente autoritativa.5\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>¿Qué debemos concluir de lo anterior? ¿Hemos “degradado a Jesús” e elevado indebidamente la Biblia a un estatus “igual a Dios”? Aunque numerosos caminos podrían perseguirse provechosamente, quiero examinar solo un tema y quizás el más importante. Quiero intentar responder la pregunta: “¿Qué creía Jesús sobre la Biblia? ¿Cuál era la visión del Salvador sobre la Escritura?” Después de todo, como dice correctamente el temprano Clark Pinnock, “El","\n\nSermon: Qu'a-t-on cru Jésus au sujet de la Bible? (Matthieu 5:17-18)","\n\n설교: 예수께서 성경에 대해 어떻게 생각했나? (마태복음 5:17-18)",[]]