Jan 6, 2009 | 5:58 PM
Category:
News
What I would like to know is why there are some kids who who think they can get what they want by commiting a serious offense. I am sure most everyone has heard on the news about the case of 17 yr old Erin Caffey receiving two life sentences for her part in the murders of her mother and two little brothers and atttempted murder of her father. Some of you may remember the case of Kristi Koslow back in the early ninties. Both girls had their families attacked for the same reason. A boyfriend the parents didn't approve of. Why do some kids think they can get what they want by doing what the above two did or are they just being spitefull. Why is it that some kids are unable to conceive of the fact that love is a very powerfull emotion. I would think that being respectfull of parent's wishes and what they say would work out a whoile lot better. I know for my part, when i was a teenager, their where times when i didn't agree with my parents but still listened to them. Looking back now I am very glad I did listen to them. I understand better now than I did when I was a teen that my parents had only my best interests in mind. I would think too, that being content with what one has now would make it much easier for the pieces of the puzzle of one adult life to just simply fall into place. When that is allowed to happen, how it happens can't be explained. It just happens.
Jan 4, 2009 | 9:17 PM
Category:
Faith
From Practical Christian Living
By Priority Associates
A ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ
Confirmation of the Bible through History.
Bibliographical Test
The third means for verifying the reliability of the Bibleis its confirmation by historical test. Josh McDowell argues that the Bible should be subjected to the same tests as any other historical document to determine its reliability. These tests are the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test.
New Testament bibliographical test. McDowell describes the bibliographical test as " . . . an examination of the textual transmission by which the documents reach us." This is accomplished by examining the nmber of manuscripts and the time interval between the original and existing copy. The manuscript evidence of the New Testament is astounding. Today there are over 5,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in Greek and at least 15,000 more in other languages. No other ancient writing has anywhere near this abundance of manuscript evidence. Additionally, the interval of time between the composition of the New Testament booksand the date of the earliest existing manuscripts is the shortest of any work of antiquity. Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, who was the director of the British Museum, summarizes the manuscript evidence as follows:
The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant [existing] evidence become so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.
Old Testament bibliographical test. This test for the Old Testament is more complicated. Given the age difference between the New and Old Testaments, the number of surviving manuscripts is much smaller.
Despite the small number of manuscripts (as compared to the New Testament), the accuracy of the Old Testament documents have been verifiedthrough the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947. The Scrolls consist of approximately 40,000 inscribed fragments. Over 500 books have been reconstructedfrom these pieces. The Dead Sea Scrolls provide confirming evidence that Old Testament manuscripts date before the time of Christ.
Gleason Archer, Chairman of Old Testament at Trinity Evangelical Dinivity School, reports that the Isaiah copies ". . . proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling." Dr. Henry Morris, President of the Institute for Creation Research, concludes, "There is thus no resonable doubt that our present Old Testament . . . is practically identical with the text in use several centuries before Christ, practically extending back to the time when the last books of the Old Testament were originally written."
Interanl Evidence Test
The second test for the historical accuracy of the Bible is the internal evidence test. This test determines whether the written record is credible by analyzing the ability of the writer or witness to tell the truth. The New Testament relies upon men who were eyewitnesses of the actual events and teachings of Jesus, or men who related eyewitness accounts of these details. Throughout the New Testament, the writers refer to what they had seen and heard. Many of their contemporaries also had witnessed Jesus' life. if they reported the facts incorrectly, these people would have challenged their writings. F.F. Bruce explains, the disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so"
An additional indication of the sincerity of thge New Testament writers is their willingness to record incidents that portray themselves in a negative light, such as their flight after Jesus' arrest, their competition for a high place in the Kingdom of God, and Peter's denial of Christ. Given these facts, we can trust the New Testament writers' portrayal of Christ.
External Evidence Test
The external evidence test is the final one that historians use to verify the reliability of a document. This test seeks other historical material to substantiate the information contained in the document under review. One example of such confirmation is the testimony of a friend of the Apostle John (who wrote five books in the New Testament). Irenaeus, who was the Bishop of Lyons in A.D. 180, was a disciple of John and wrote the following:
Matthew published his gospel among the Hebrews. . . in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure. . . Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John. . . himself produced his gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia.
Along with the testimony of contemporaries, archeology also provides powerful external evidence for the reliability of the Bible. (This confirmation will be discussed at length in the following section.) Archeologist Joseph Free reports, "Archeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts." Finally, the weight of historical evidence clearly upholds the reliability of the Bible as Dr. Clark Pinnock states:
There exists no document from the ancient world witnessed by so excelling a set of textual and historical testimonies and offering so superb an array of historical data on which an intelligent decision may be made. An honest [person] cannot dismiss a source of this kind. Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational (i.e., antisupernatural) bias.
Dec 30, 2008 | 1:28 AM
Category:
Faith
Can We Trust The Bible?
From Practical Christian Living
By Priority Associates
A ministry of Campus Crusade For Christ
Not only does the uniqueness of the Bible support its reliability, but the methods of translation of this book also support its dependability. As previously outlined, the Bible was written over centuries by a variety of people. The original writings were composed in Hebrew (most of the Old Testament), Aramaic (parts of Ezra, Daniel, and Jeremiah), and Greek (the whole New Testament).
These writings have since been translated into most of the world's known languages. This causes some to question the accuracy of the Bible. They ask, "If the Bible has been translated so many times, version upon version, how can one possibly trust its reliability?" The answer to this question is found in the translation process. While the Bible has been translated into numerous languages, these translations are only one, or at most two, steps removed from the original text.
The Bible was translated into other languages soon after it was written. The Old Testament was translated into Greek during the third century B.C. From 383-400 A.D., Jerome, the secretary to the bishop of Rome, translated the Bible into Latin. In 1382, John Wycliffe translated the Bible from Latin into English so the people could study the Bible in their own tongue. The Renaissance brought a renewed interest in the classics and the desire to study them in their original languages. William Tyndale, who studied Hebrew and Greek, translated the Bible into English directly from ancient Greek texts. Other English translations followed in quick order, but probably the greatest of all English translations was commissioned by King James of England in 1604 and was first published in 1611.
Each of these works was taken carefully from the oldest writings of the Old and New Testaments. Since the study of Greek and Hebrew was revived in the fifteenth century, scholars have been able to work directly from ancient manuscripts. Therefore, the belief is unfounded that today,s Bible is based on a series of previous translations. We can be confident the Bible translations we have today are accurate and based directly on ancient manuscripts.
A further question arises, "Why are there so many current translations and why do they seem to vary at times?" Wycliffe produced his work because of his desire to present a translation in the common tongue.
Current translations are made with a similar motivation to produce a fresh version in the language of today. A careful comparison of a translation from 1960 with a more current translation would show subtle differences in word choice. Comparing both to the much older King James Version would show even greater differences.
Today's translations also will vary somewhat based on whether the translators made a "word for word" translation or one based on a "thought for thought" concept. The meaning remains the same, but the word choices will vary.
Dec 25, 2008 | 2:32 AM
Category:
Faith
I thought I would do a blog about the Bible since there has been some questioning of its reliability. This is an article from the Practicle Christian Living curriculum from Priority Associates which is a ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ.
Can We Trust The Bible?
It has been called "The Greatest Book Ever Written." King and rulers have sought to destroy it with intense fervor. Men, woman, and childrenhave been put to death for affirming its teaching. Scholars have devoted their lives to proving or disproving its contents. It claims to be the word of God and the source of absolute truth. If this book has made such astonishing claims about itself, one must ask, "Is it reliable? Where did it come from? Did the events described in the Bible really take place? Can I trust that it is God's Word?"
In order to answer these questions, the Bible needs to be examined in terms of its uniqueness, preparation, and confirmation through history, archeology, and prophesy. These avenues of exploration will demonstrate the reliabilityof the Bible and why it has earned the respect and allegiance of millions throughout history.
The study of the reliability of the Bible begins with its uniqueness. Webster defines uniqueness as "different from all others; having no like or equall." The Bible is different from all other human writtings in its continuity, circulation, and survival.
The first area of uniqueness of the Bible is its continuity. it is an amazingly unified document, despite factors which would lead to great disharmony in ordinary writings. Josh McDowell, noted author and lecturer on the historical evidences of the Christian faith, outlines some of these factors. He explains that the Bible was:
1. Written over a 1,600-year span.
2. Written by more than 40 writers from every walk of life--from king to peasant; philosopher to fisherman.
3. Written in different places--from the wilderness, to a comfortable room, to a dungeon.
4. Written at different times--from war to peace.
5. Written during author's different moods--from the height of joy to the depths of despair.
6. Written on three continents--Asia, Africa, and Europe.
7. Written in three languages--Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
8. Written concerning hundreds of controversial issues.
Although the Bible contains this much diversity, its authors speak with harmony and focus on one theme: "God's redemtion of man." F.F. Bruce, Professor of Biblical Criticism at the University of Manchester, summerizes the Bible's continuity:
"The writings themselves belong to a great variety of literary types. They include history, law, religious poetry, didactic treatises, lyric poetry, parable and allegory, biography, personal correspondence, personal memoirs and diaries. . . . For all that, the Bible is not simply an anthology; there is a unity which binds the whole together. An anthology is compiled by an anthologist, but no anthologist compiled the Bible.
The second area of uniqueness for the Bible is its circulation. It has been read by more people and published in more languagesthan any other work. At the end of 1993, United Bible Societies reported that 2.062 languages had access to at least one book of the Bible. The Cambridge History of the Bible reports, "No other book has known anything approaching this constant circulation." Although the widespread circulation of the Bible does not prove it is the Word of God, it does substantiate further the uniqueness of the Bible.
The survival of the Bible is the third way it is unique from all other books. Composed before the invention of the printing press, it was written on perishable material such as papyrus abd parchment. For hundreds of years, it was copied and recopied by hand. Yet, this did not diminish its soundness. It has more manuscript evidence than any other piece of classical literature. John Warwick Montgomery, former Chairman of Church History at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, makes this staement:
"To be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity,for no document of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament."
The accuracy of the Old Testament manuscripts is the result of the Jewish system of preservation. Bernard Ramm explains this system:
"Jews preserved it as no other manuscript has ever been preserved. With their massora [methods of counting] they kept tabs on every letter, syllable, word, and paragraph. They ahd special classes of men within their culture whose sole duty was to transmit these documents with practically perfect fidelity. . . . Whoever counted the letters and syllables and words of Plato or Aristotle? Cicera or Seneca?
Not only has the Bible weathered the elements, but it has also withstood constant scrutiny and persecution. John W. Lea, author of The Greatest Book in the World, cited H.L. Hastings' explanation:
Infidels for eighteen hundred years have been refuting and overthrowing this book, and yet it stands today as solid as a rock. Its circulation increases, and it is more loved and cherished and read today than ever before. . .So the hammers of the infidels have been pecking away at this book for ages, but the hammers are worn out, and the anvil still endures. If the book had not been the book of God, men would have destroyed it long ago. Emperors and popes, kings and priests, princes and rulers have all tried their hand at it; they die, and the book still lives.
Dec 21, 2008 | 11:34 PM
Category:
Traffic
Since someone else has asked in a blog for drivers to quit driving with their brights on, I am wondering why so many drivers fund it necessary to tailgate and pull up so close behind someone else at a stop sign or red light. tailgating is a really good way to cause an accident and if you pull up really close to the vehicle in front of you when stopped at an intersection and you were to be rearended by the next vehicle that comes along behind you, you could be pushed into the vehicle infront of yours. When stopped at a red light or stop sign you should leave enough space to see the pavement between your vehicle and the one in front of you. When following behind someone else while moving on the road you should leave enough space between your vehicle and the one in front of you that another vehicle can safely overtake that space. To every friver out there, please remember to leave more room.
