Home Cultural Issues Other Cultural Issues Train Christians Is the Bible Reliable?
Train Christians

Is the Bible Reliable?

43
5
0



For more information, read Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels (http://amzn.to/2AW8bc5)

Read: Every Easter Sermon Is Built on The Reliability of The Gospel Eyewitnesses

Every Easter Sermon Is Built on the Reliability of the Gospel Eyewitnesses

Why should we trust what the gospel authors have to say about Jesus? How can we test the Gospel authors to see if their accounts are reliable? J. Warner answers these questions in this video from a stage presentation from his book, Cold-Case Christianity.

source

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]
Post Views: 5
Tags biblicalbiblical archaeologybiblical archeologybiblical authoritybiblical inerrancybiblical infallibilitybiblical reliabilitybiblical sciencebiblical science factsbiblical truthChristianity (Religion)evangelicalextra biblicalhistorical reliabilityhistorical reliability of the gospelshistorically reliableinfallibilityreliabilityreliability of new testamentreliability of the biblereliablethe the bible reliable?unreliable
Previous Post
1704461815_maxresdefault.jpg

Can You Trust the NY Times?

Next Post
1729783337_maxresdefault.jpg

What Does the Bible Mean When it Encourages People to “Seek”?

Related posts

Leave your comment

43 Comments

  27. 1:08:29 the role of the Church council in compiling already-existing gospels. There’s no reasonable way that they create have created the gospels, and don’t let it stand, un-objected, that they did any such thing. Don’t let lies stand

  35. I grew up Mormon. It has took me around 5 years to break away and another 5 to finally realize it's a false Religion.

    Watching this varifies to me. As he goes over the apostles accounts how they might leave some things out, they don't counter or usurp each other. They support one another. The Book if Mormon, pearl of great price and the JST of the Bible all usurp the power of meaning behind the Bible. That is why Mormons always say "As long as the translation is correct". That is why they use the KJV of the Bible

  37. 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

    5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

    6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

  40. If the BoM had that kind of strong archeological evidence, then there would be no faith required to believe in it. God wants us to know him through faith, not through evidence alone.

    However, some intriguing items:
    * Despite the fact that it was widely considered that the Americas were populated purely by Asiatic peoples, Semitic X-chromosomal DNA has been found dispersed across a wide area in the eastern United States, especially between the Great Lakes and the Hudson Bay area.
    * Despite the fact that nobody had ever heard of writings engraved on metal plates at the time of Joseph Smith's claims about the BoM, it has been discovered (almost 100 years later) that this was in fact a somewhat regular occurrence in the Near East, contemporary especially with the BoM timelines.
    * Despite it not being known at the time, horses are native to North America and definitely did exist there in the past — as did elephants and many other animals. They just seem to be in the wrong timeline. Ditto with barley and a few other plants. There definitely are some plants and fauna which were unknown in JS's day that have since been found to either be currently or previously existent in North America.

    There are some other interesting evidences, but I find the above the most compelling, although I am not a Mormon. It would require either a pretty intriguing level of coincidence, or for the BoM to be true. Which doesn't necessarily mean Joseph Smith was actually a prophet. There is plenty of stuff he taught later that directly contradicts the BoM (such as polygamy)