Is the Bible really a credible source?

Answer 1

The Bible was a credible source, and that there is a lot of proof to prove it. It is so historically accurate, it lists the Roman ruler at the time. The Roman historian Tacitus wrote about Jesus, mentioning him in his book. Celsus, another historian, also mentioned Jesus. The earliest fragment of the New Testament we have is a fragment of John found in Egypt. It has been dated by secular scientists as having been written around 120 years after Christ. It matches perfectly with the modern Bible, proving that almost no changes have been made. The Septuagint was written by seventy two separate scholars who weren't allowed to see each other while they were writing it. They all turned out identical translations. Either all of them made the same mistake, or the flaw wasn't that serious at all. According to Westcott and Hort, the Septuagint didhave the word virgin. Incidentally, there are over four hundred other prophecies about Jesus. All of them were written centuries before his time, and all were fulfilled. The odds of any one man fulfilling just eight of the prophecies Jesus fulfilled was calculated by Peter Stoner, who worked it out to be 1028! How credible can you get?

Answer:

A credible source for what? Skipping to the obvious... and assuming the question is inquiring as to its being a credible source of God's Truth -- His special revealing of Himself to mankind:

The vast majority of mankind [the Chinese and East Indians] are barely aware of its existence... and the Bible remains only a source of annoyance to the governments of these nations.

To the vast majority of the rest of the nations of the world that has access to the Bible -- very few of them actually read the Book, and therefore has no idea what it says. That puts a strain on the Bible's being a credible source of anything with them.

Plus... in these last days when everyone and his brother seems to enjoy re-writing history -- the Bible suffers even more credibility among those who tend to place their "faith" in these modern re-writes as their source of truth.

So, for the most part in this modern computerized world -- the Bible is a far cry from being a "credible source" of God's Truth to the nations of the world.

As Paul tells us: "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel -- not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it the power of God.

"For it is written: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.'

"Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

"For since in the wisdom of God the world throught its wisdom did not know Him. God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe." (I Cor.1:17-21 NIV)

The Bible is a credible source of God's Truth to those who read it, study it... and BELIEVE what it says. Those who place their "faith" and "child-like trust" in what it says.

This is a belief, faith and trust that the world just doesn't possess in great quantity.

So, the Bible is NOT a credible source of God's Truth to the vast majority of the nations of the world. But to a rare few... to those who "tremble" when they read the Bible... it's their Bedrock of Truth -- and their only credible source of it:

"...to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at My Word." (Isa.66:2)

Answer 2

No, the Bible is not a credible source, except for those who insist without evidence that it is inerrant. It is full of historical errors, contradictions, doublets and improbabilities. In many cases, there is clear evidence of later insertions and alterations. Even the process of copying by hand, repeated many times over the centuries, has led to the introduction of changes to the original text.

The New Testament contains many passages that refer back to the Old Testament as if to show that the life of Jesus was forshadowed or even prophesied in the Old Testament. The most famous example of this is in Matthew 1:23, where the author referred back to Isaiah 7:14 to say that a virgin would conceive and bear a child, implying that this was a prophecy of Jesus himself. However, the reference that Matthewused was from the Septuagint, a flawed Greek translation from the Hebrew original, which did not refer to a virgin at all. Perhaps it is only unfortunate that the Septuagint translation was wrong, but it is a more serious error that the author of Matthew should rely on it, thus creating a problem of credibility in his own gospel.