When you say "All you have is a book comprised of a collection of ancient writings" isn't that the norm for how we come to understand anything about the ancient world?
There's more evidence to support the accuracy and authenticity of The Bible than for any other text from the ancient world.
The Bible is supported by more manuscript evidence than any other book from the ancient world. There are in excess of 24,000 extant Greek manuscripts, codex’s and fragments of the Old and New Testament. These have been attested more thoroughly than any other work from the ancient world, and the New Testament alone has approx.. 5300 manuscripts
For example:
-Plato/ written 427-347BC/ earliest fragment AD 900 / 7 Manuscripts
-Tacitus 'Annals'/ written AD100/ earliest fragment AD1100/ 20 Manuscripts
-New Testament / written AD40-100/ earliest fragment AD125/ 5,300 Manuscripts
The Bible is also supported by well over 40 secular sources i.e. non-Christian of evidence for events described in The New Testament surrounding the life and works of Jesus in particular.
I would challenge anybody to provide the equivalent amount of primary and independent objective evidence equivalent in both quality and quantity to that which is required to support arguments from the Bible, to demonstrate that Julius Caesar fought in the Roman Civil war.
My point here is that we have an historically accurate text with The Bible. It can be measured and checked objectively (unlike most other "religious texts") and stands up the tests from historians, archaeologists, anthropologists and so.
To demonstrate otherwise you would have to re-write history, and then back an alternative history up with the amount of evidence that there is for The Bible.
Isn't that stating the obvious though? Since when as The Bible every professed to be a science book? Watch the following 4 minute clip:
Are there scientific errors in the Bible? - YouTube
Well it has something to do with the existence of God!!
I am completely confident that the Bible is true. We know The Bible is true because it stands up to the scrutiny of the historical method (see Historical method..)
Using this approach when you make a comparison between the Christian view of Jesus and other religions (the Islamic view, for example), it is quite clear that the Christian view can only be the correct view:
1.Date: Christianity 65-90 AD / Islam 610-632 AD
2.Where: Christianity - Judea/Galilee / Islam - Medina/Mecca
3.Authorship: Christianity – eyewitnesses and close associates (disciples) who personally knew Jesus / Islam – Muhammad who lived approximately 600 later
4.Analysis: Christianity – apocalyptic traditions, oral narratives, didactic sayings / Islam – dictated in an alleged dream directly to Muhammad
5.Integrity: Christianity – manuscripts, scrolls and codices / Islam – originally spoken, then written versions on tablets and bones. Full written version not completed until 700 AD
6.Credibility: Christianity – gospels accounts independently corroborated by Jewish traditions as well as secular historical accounts / Islam – no known independent or secular affirmation know outside of Qu’ran
In order to believe that Islam has the correct view of Jesus, you have to believe that an account written by someone 600 years later than when Jesus lived, written closed to 1000 km from where Jesus lived by someone who never met Jesus, with no eyewitness accounts and an account which contradicts known secular historical evidence which can independently verify the Christian account is the correct account.
To do this you have to completely disregard the historical method for establishing authenticity. And then you have to disregard the whole of ancient history!!
There is no known non-Islamic/ secular evidence which can corroborate the Qu'ranic version of Jesus Christ.
The best evidence that Muslims claim is The Gospel of Barnabas, which only has 2 manuscript copies and is generally considered by practically all Bible scholars to be a fraud.
The Jewish traditions confirm the Christian account of Jesus Christ on a factual level. They simply deny it's meaning or relevance, and that's why they put him to death for blasphemy...
Until any credible evidence can be provided and demonstrated to counter The Biblical evidence, then The Bible has to be considered the truthful account historically.
So the Christian position is simply based on a correct understanding of history - that's it!!
Don't forget, contrary to claims by skeptics that using the Bible to defend the Bible is circular reasoning, the Bible is self validating in terms of fulfilled prophecies. Consider that the Bible predicted the rise and fall of four world empires, including the Babylonian Empire, the Medo-Persian Empire, the Greek Empire and the Roman Empire. Don't forget also the over 300 Old Testament prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus. There are many others. In all of this, the prophecies are 100% accurate. Who other than God, who knows the beginning from the end, could have made such prophecies.
Upvote
0