accuracy of the Bible – La Vista Church of Christ

When Jesus Marveled (Hamilton)

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sun, 08 Mar 2026 23:26:16 +0000

https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2003/11/When-Jesus-Marveled.mp3

by Jeffrey W. Hamilton

Text: Matthew 8:5-13

I. Even the seemingly small things within the Bible are significant.

A. I find it puzzling that people claim that the Bible is inspired, as we are told in II Timothy 3:16-17, but then turn around and want to modify it.

1. In June of 2006 I ran across an article where Charles Bennison, an Episcopalian Bishop, stated, “the church wrote the Bible, the church can change the Bible.”

2. How ignorant this man and his followers are of the true nature of the Bible.

3. The word that made us Christians is permanent and unchanging - I Peter 1:22-25

4. The church exists to uphold that word, not to modify it as it sees fit because men are not fit to modify the work of God - I Timothy 3:15

B. Even the seemingly small phrases, the things you can overlook on your tenth reading through the Scriptures will suddenly take on new light when you read it the eleventh time.

1. When Jesus wanted to show the Sadducees that life continued after death, he didn’t go to a passage that discussed what happens after death.

2. He selected a simple passage that discussed something else entirely, but made a subtle but strong point - Matthew 22:31-33

3. The strength of his point was buried in the verb tense of a passage dealing with another matter.

C. Now, tell me, who in their right mind would want to fiddle with God’s book when even the tense of a verb can contain a powerful point?

II. The faith of a centurion - Matthew 8:5-13

A. A centurion comes pleading for the health of a servant who is paralyzed and in pain

1. Not a family member, not a beloved wife or child, a servant!

2. Centurions were officers in the Roman army. Though a Gentile, this man understood - Galatians 5:14

B. Even though Jesus said “yes,” the man thought himself too lowly for the Messiah to enter his humble home. All he asked of Jesus was his word.

1. What beauty in humility is demonstrated by this man!

2. The Jews were constantly testing Jesus, demanding that he explain himself, asking him where he got his authority to say the things he said.

3. This man stated that he knew that Jesus had authority over the world, over sickness, disease, and paralysis!

C. The Jews wanted signs - I Corinthians 1:22

1. Yet despite all that was done, it was never enough - Mark 8:11-12

2. It was common for people to see others as limited as themselves - John 11:21

3. Yet this Gentile understood that Jesus’ power was not limited by presence.

4. He understood better than the Jews this passage - Psalms 107:19-20

III. And Jesus marveled at the man

A. Do you see the significance of this small phrase?

B. Some asked me a while ago, if God planned everything in advance, and knows everything that is going to happen, then why did Jesus marvel at the centurion’s strong faith.

1. It is an excellent question.

C. God has stated that whatever He has decided will come to past - Isaiah 46:9-11

1. The extent of His ability is difficult for mortal man to grasp

2. 150 years in advance of the actual event - Isaiah 44:28

a. At the time of the statement, Assyria ruled the world, with no end in sight

b. But a short while later, it was wiped out suddenly by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.

c. Cyrus, however, was king in the empire that wiped out Babylon in its own surprise attack.

d. What Isaiah recorded is equivalent of naming who would be head of the world’s leading nation, not just after the United States falls, but of the nation that brings down the nation that brings down the United States!

e. We can’t even fathom the first fall, let alone the succeeding details.

3. Isaiah 42:9

a. In struggling to understand how God is able to do this, some theologians concluded that everything in this world must have been predetermined by God before He even created the world.

b. Thus He can tell the future because the events are playing out as He had decided long ago.

4. A number of passages do appear to support this idea

a. The determined purpose and foreknowledge of God - Acts 2:22-23

b. Whom He foreknew, He predestined - Romans 8:28-30

c. Chose us before the foundation of the world - Ephesians 1:3-6

d. Elect according to the foreknowledge of God - I Peter 1:1-2

5. John Calvin looked at these passages and concluded that God is obviously completely sovereign in the universe. Everything is under His control and every thought and action has been predetermined.

a. If God chooses to elect a person, then being perfect, He makes no mistake. That person is saved.

b. If you are not chosen, then there is nothing a person can do about his lost condition.

D. But the conclusion is wrong. It contradicts numerous other plain passages

1. How many times does God plead with people to repent? - Ezekiel 18:30-32

a. Such pleading would not make sense if everything is predetermined

b. It implies a person has a choice.

2. It would mean that God’s plan and God’s desire contradict! - II Peter 3:9

a. God does not want people to perish

b. But He warns that they will if they do not repent

3. If God planned every thought and action before the world began, then it leads to the conclusion that God planned all evil

a. A conclusion that contradicts James 1:13

E. What is missing is that man is created in the image of God - Genesis 1:27

1. Like God, man has a choice of whether to do good or evil

2. Only then do statements like Joshua’s make sense - Joshua 24:15

F. If you go back through the passages that seem to support a complete predestination, you will notice that God never said that every thought or every action had been predetermined; only that certain outcomes had been set.

1. God stated that Cyrus was going to rebuild Jerusalem, but God didn’t say how that point in history would come about.

2. God said that certain people would be saved, but He didn’t say that He selected individuals; instead as we read we realize that God had planned to save a certain type of person who displayed certain characteristics

G. Examples from life

1. I can, with fair certainty, predict what a child will eat for lunch if I offer him a choice of a peanut butter and jelly or fried liver and onions with Brussel sprouts on the side.

a. Assuming he had no allergies to peanut butter, he would have complete free choice.

b. He probably thinks he got the best of me because he’s munching on a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

c. Even though I knew the outcome, he still had a free choice.

2. I’ve played complex games, such as chess, against people far above my ability. It doesn’t take long to realize that I’m going to lose.

a. The funny thing is that I still have a full choice in regards to my own moves.

b. But no matter what I choose, I know I’m going to lose against my opponents’ choices.

H. God’s power and ability to manipulate the world is so vast that He can declare with absolute certainty what the outcome will be, no matter what are the independent choices made by each person involved.

1. Try to imagine the power and knowledge that would require!

2. The book of Esther hints at this.

a. Hamaan had gotten a law passed that allowed the destruction of the Jews.

b. Mordecai, cousin to the queen, approaches Esther and tells her that she needs to interfere in the matter

c. The problem is that no one, not even the queen, can approach the king without an invitation and she hasn’t been invited into the king’s presence in a while.

d. Esther 4:13-14 - Mordecai is convinced that the Jews would be rescued because of prior promises by God that would require the Jews continued existence for a while.

e. Notice that Esther has full free choice. No matter what is her choice, the Jews would be rescued. But her choice would impact herself and her family.

IV. What led up to the events concerning the centurion?

A. Did the centurion’s servant fall ill to provide an opportunity for Jesus to display His power?

1. As Mordecai said, “who knows?”

2. We are not told if this was a pre-planned event or a simple opportunity from a chance encounter.

B. Random events do happen - Ecclesiastes 9:11

C. What we do know:

1. The centurion chose to approach Jesus concerning his servant

2. Because of his humility and faith he chose to ask Jesus to simply say the word and not bother with going to his home

D. It is at the man’s choices that Jesus marveled because the man was a Gentile

1. He was not raised knowing the stories concerning the power of God as were the Jews

2. Yet this man leaped to the proper conclusion that Jesus did not have to be physically present for his servant to be healed!

E. Jesus marveled because he knew the hearts of men

1. Matthew 12:25 - He knew people’s thoughts

2. John 2:24-25 - Jesus knew what was in all men

3. Jesus was able to see beyond just the words of the centurion and see the strength of his faith

4. He marveled because he knew the hearts of the people in Israel and knew that no one among the Jews had faith equal to this Gentile

V. Did Jesus know in advance?

A. “Who knows?”

B. But likely there wasn’t anything to know until the centurion made his choices.

1. He could have not come, showing no faith

2. He could have asked Jesus to come to his house, showing a faith similar to the Jews

3. But he chose the path of greater faith and it was at this choice that Jesus marveled.

Mistakes in the Bible

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 04 Mar 2026 16:19:13 +0000

by Allen Dvorak

“Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem” (II Kings 8:26).

“Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem” (II Chronicles 22:2).

Bible critics love to point to such numerical discrepancies and conclude that the Bible is full of errors. It is certainly agreed that Ahaziah could not have been both forty-two and twenty-two at the same time! Before we conclude, however, that we have found a “mistake” in the Bible, we should note that there is a difference between a contradiction among Biblical authors and an error created by the method of textual transmission.

While reading a book, I occasionally notice spelling errors or missing words. I do not immediately conclude that the author of the original manuscript is responsible for the errors or omissions because I understand that someone else published the book. Someone edited the manuscript. There was an opportunity for errors, perhaps insignificant ones, to creep into the finished product via the human element in textual transmission, even mechanical printing.

The books of the Bible were written by inspired men, i.e., men guided by the Holy Spirit (I Peter 1:21; I Corinthians 2:10-13; II Timothy 3:16-17). Certainly, the Holy Spirit would let no error, doctrinal, numerical, historical, or otherwise, become part of the original text. It is in this sense that we speak of the Scriptures as inerrant. The Bible, however, was preserved from one generation to another in the same way that other ancient documents were transmitted — by manual copying. Scribes dutifully and meticulously copied the books of both the Old and New Testaments over centuries. The scribes were not inspired and thus could make mistakes in their work of copying. A scribal error is not a Bible contradiction. The Hebrews used letters to represent numbers, and many of the letters are quite similar. It would be very easy for a scribe to mistake one letter for another, especially if the copy from which he was making his copy was not written carefully or had been smudged or damaged. This is most certainly the way that Ahaziah got to be forty-two in one text and twenty-two in another — a scribe mistaking one letter (representing a numerical value) for another.

The biblical writers display an astounding accuracy in matters of geography, politics, history, and even medicine! Historians were skeptical of the existence of the Hittites, a people mentioned in the Old Testament… until archaeologists found evidence of their culture. Sir William Ramsay, an eminent archaeologist, was convinced, at one point in his life, that the book of Acts was actually written in the second century A.D. In his research on topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor, he discovered that Luke was meticulously accurate in his record of Paul’s journeys.

If the Bible has contradictions, it cannot be the Word of God. An inerrant Bible, however, is of inestimable value.

Warning

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 31 Dec 2025 16:56:32 +0000

by Hugh DeLong

Text: Revelation 22

As we finish reading the rather strange (compared to the gospels and letters of the New Testament), we are given a stark warning:

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book" (Revelation 22:18-19).

The problem is simply that the mind of men is not able on its own to discern the mind of God; we need a revelation from God to reveal the mind of God unto us. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death" (Proverbs 14:12). Isaiah proclaimed: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9).

Thus, this warning: Do not add or subtract.

We have such a revelation, and it is the New Testament. While this warning may specifically apply to this book, the principle has been stated many times. In the giving of the Old Testament, Moses addresses the second generation of Israel, the children of those adults who came out of Egypt. This is the book of Deuteronomy. Moses, the man of God and Lawgiver to Israel, wrote:

"You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you" (Deuteronomy 4:2).

“Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it" (Deuteronomy 12:32).

God could and did reveal more through the prophets that followed. Being inspired, they revealed the Word of God (note how many ‘Thus saith the Lord’ or equivalent phrases are used throughout the Old Testament!). Proverbs warned: "Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar" (Proverbs 30:5-6).

Similarly, John wrote: “Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting” (II John 9-10).

Whenever we try to teach what God likes, dislikes, hates, loves, etc., we need to speak as the Bible speaks. Paul said: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (II Timothy 3:16-17). It tells what we need to know to be right with God.

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him" (Colossians 3:16-17).

The Elephant in Mark 16

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 27 Dec 2025 16:30:24 +0000

by Edwin Crozier

Is It Even Supposed to Be There?

Some of the newer translations, such as the ESV I commonly use, have made it abundantly clear there is a huge question about whether or not Mark 16:9-20 are originally part of Mark. Smack in the middle of the page, we find the message: “Some of the Earliest Manuscripts Do Not Include 16:9-20.”

I’m no textual critic. I’m no Greek scholar. There are plenty of people smarter than me and more informed about textual criticism who are faithful Christians who believe Mark 16:9-20 is the original ending. However, there are plenty of people smarter than me and more informed about textual criticism who are faithful Christians who believe it is not. As the old politician said, “I’m for my friends.”

I’m honestly out of my depth to try to make a case either way. However, like all Bible readers, I have to decide what to make of this.

Four Points that Help Me

The Exception that Proves the Rule

Don’t let the skeptical critics lead you astray about what this message means. Some say we can’t even know what was originally in the Bible because of passages like this one. They will turn to this passage and a couple of others to claim we don’t know if they should even be there, as if we can’t tell if any passage should be in the Bible.

That just isn’t true. In fact, far from indicating the Biblical text is an unknowable mess, this indicates the wealth of evidence we have about what is in the Bible. This question about the ending of Mark didn’t come about because skeptics dug in where believers feared to tread. Not at all. Bible believers who study manuscripts have brought to light much evidence regarding what is and what is not in the Bible. This question has come about not because we don’t have enough evidence, but because we have so much evidence. In fact, the very few passages that have this kind of doubt are actually a testimony to how much evidence we have for the certainty of what is in the Bible.

Nothing Lost, Nothing Added

Read and reread the final paragraphs in Mark as we now have it. What would be lost if we proved Mark originally ended his gospel at verse 8? Absolutely nothing.

What is added to Christian doctrine and teaching if we read these verses as if original? Absolutely nothing.

In other words, the argument about Mark 16:9-20 is an interesting scholarly debate. But pragmatically speaking, it makes little difference. Take it or leave it. Christianity will be the same. Giving allegiance to Jesus will look the same. Worshipping God will look the same.

The Testimony of Very Early Christians

Even if it is proven that Mark did not actually pen Mark 16:9-20, we recognize that very early Christians believed the gospel account didn’t end at verse 8. Further, if these verses don’t represent what Mark originally wrote, they represent what very early Christians generally believed.

Think about that for a moment. Some people like to question these final paragraphs because of the strong teaching on the necessity of baptism for salvation. However, if they want to claim Mark didn’t originally write these paragraphs, they have to admit what these verses include was so fully believed by early, post-Biblical Christians a later editor could add it and the general Christian population accepted it.

Addition by a Second Writer or Editor Does Not Deny Inspiration

Honestly, based on the three points above, I don’t have a dog in this fight about whether Mark 16:9-20 was originally written by Mark. Even if we proved it wasn’t inspired and needed to cut it out of our Bibles, I wouldn’t sweat it. Everything I want to teach from this passage, I can teach from the rest of Scripture.

However, let's note that while no one can add to the Word of God, having a later editor, redactor, or even supplementary author does not deny inspiration. In Mark 10:2-4, Jesus attributes the authorship of Deuteronomy to Moses. However, read Deuteronomy 34. Virtually no one believes Moses wrote Deuteronomy 34. Yet, I am unaware of anyone who believes in the inspiration of Scripture and the general authorship of Moses for the Pentateuch who says Deuteronomy 34 is uninspired or shouldn’t be there.

Don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying that means Mark 16:9-20 is necessarily in the same boat as Deuteronomy 34. I’m just saying, given the first three points above, we don’t have to be in a faith-shattering bind about these paragraphs.

Wrapping Up

I realize I haven’t walked the elephant out of Mark 16. It’s still there. Folks still need to study it and talk about it. But I hope we’ve demonstrated it is a tamed elephant, not one to be frightened of. And I hope you found these points helpful as well.

Were the apostles in full agreement on all doctrine?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 19 Mar 2025 23:43:16 +0000

Question:

Were the apostles in full agreement on all doctrines?

Answer:

"Doctrine" means teachings. Jesus told his apostles, "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you" (John 16:13-15). Therefore, what the apostles taught all came from the Holy Spirit. God doesn't tell one person one thing and another person something else. One of the unique features of the Bible is that despite being written by over 40 people over a 1,500 year period, the writings are consistent. You would expect this when the source of the material comes from the God who cannot lie (Titus 1:2). Paul mentioned that even the words were selected for them. "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words" (I Corinthians 2:12-13).

People who want to claim that there was a disagreement over the teachings point to Paul's rebuke of Peter.

"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, 'If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?'" (Galatians 2:11-14).

Paul charged Peter and the other brethren with hypocrisy. In other words, Peter was teaching one thing but acting differently in his life. It is Peter who had first taught the Gentiles in Acts 10 and stayed with them for a few days (Acts 10:48), which implies that he ate with them. Peter also argued that they were saved just as the Jews were saved (Acts 11:17). And when false teachers came out of Jerusalem claiming that the Gentiles had to live by the law of Moses, Peter stood against them (Acts 15:7-11). We aren't told how he was pressured into isolating himself from the Gentiles, but Peter never denied that Paul was stating the truth. He failed to live by his own teachings, but his teachings were correct because the Holy Spirit ensured the gospel was taught correctly.

Therefore, there is no record of differences in doctrine between the apostles. Such could not happen with the Holy Spirit delivering the doctrine through the apostles.

Question:

Thank you for answering my question. I have another question.

If all of the apostles were in full agreement on all teachings of the Bible, why are there so many Christians in fellowship with people who believe in false doctrine? Shouldn’t Christians agree on all of the teachings of the Bible? Some Christians believe in theological triage to stop division between Christians and to maintain unity among Christians, but I think this concept might be wrong because all of the apostles agreed on all of the teachings of the word of God. Some people teach that "once saved, always saved" and "original sin" are secondary issues, not primary ones. I disagree with that because both doctrines give people licenses to sin. The whole point of what I'm saying is that Christians should agree on all biblical teachings. I’ve preached with people who believe in "original sin" and "once saved, always saved," and I realized that it was wrong to preach with them because they are spreading false doctrine to sinners.

Answer:

"But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron" (I Timothy 4:1-2).

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths" (II Timothy 4:3-4).

Just because the Holy Spirit guided the apostles, it doesn't mean everyone received the same guidance. There will always be people who think they know better than the experts. There will always be people who will want their desires met regardless of what God says on the matter.

Even during the times of the apostles, there was a struggle with false teachers (Acts 15; I Timothy 1:18-20; 6:20-21; II Timothy 2:16-18; I John 4:1-4). Why would you conclude that such a struggle to remain faithful would not continue to this day?

While Christians should be united, the reality is that Satan will always pull people away.

A Siege Ramp Against Our Faith

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 18 Jan 2025 19:16:46 +0000

by Lee Wildman
via Biblical Insights, Vol 14, No. 9, September 2014

Masada was a fortress on a plateau overlooking the Dead Sea where Herod the Great built a palace over 30 years before Jesus was born. After the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD, they were determined to take this fortress from the Jews who had escaped there. They built a siege ramp up to the wall so that they could break through it with a battering ram. At first, some of the workers were killed when the Jews threw rocks on them. Later, Jewish prisoners of war were used to build the ramp, and the ploy worked. The Jews would not kill their own, even though they knew the ramp could lead to the taking of the fortress. The wall was eventually breached, and Masada fell into the hands of the Roman army.

This got me thinking about the wall of faith each of us should have and how we must do all we can to protect it from Satan's relentless attacks. We must "guard our hearts" (Proverbs 4:23) and be aware of his tactics (II Corinthians 2:11). He will try to conquer our minds by building a siege ramp, one shovel-full at a time.

One area in particular that concerns me is the devil's attempt to destroy our faith in the reliability of the Bible. Is it really the word of God? Can we know that we have what the apostles originally wrote? Have the Scriptures been changed as they have been translated over the past 2000 years? Are there not thousands of variants in the manuscripts? These are not uncommon questions in our day.

While there are variants in the manuscripts used to formulate the original text, the differences are mostly spelling errors and inverted words and phrases. Concerning these, Greg Koukl quoted Greek scholar D.A. Carson as saying, "The purity of text is of such a substantial nature that nothing we believe to be true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants." Koukl also wrote that "this issue is no longer contested by non-Christian scholars, and for good reason. Simply put, if we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds, we'd have to reject every ancient work of antiquity and declare null and void every piece of historical information from written sources prior to the beginning of the second millennium A.D." (1)

Consider the following example of a bias against the Bible instead of accepting what other ancient writings have to say. The author of an article about Herod the Great wrote, "Herod's reign over Judea from 37 to 4 BC is not remembered for justice but for its indiscriminate cruelty. His most notorious act was the murder of all male infants in Bethlehem to prevent the fulfillment of a prophecy heralding the birth of the Messiah. There is no record of the decree other than the Gospel of Matthew, and biblical scholars debate whether it actually took place, but the story is in keeping with a man who arranged the murders of, among others, three of his own sons and a beloved wife." (2) Did you notice that Matthew's text is questioned, but apparently any others that speak of what Herod did to his sons and his wife are not?! Where does this latter information come from? Evidently, it comes from the writings of Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian. However, the manuscript evidence we have for the trustworthiness of the Bible is far greater in terms of the number of manuscripts available and the age of some of those in terms of how soon they were written after the events they told about. I believe we can concur with Tom Moody, who wrote, "Applying the same tests and allowing the same standards by which any other document can be measured for authenticity and reliability, the Bible stands." (3)

Why do some so easily dismiss the words of the Bible? I suggest that it's because the Bible has some serious things to say about God and the expectations He has of us. F.F. Bruce noted that "it is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians?" (4)

Other evidence, such as fulfilled prophecies, the unity of the message, archaeological findings, and eyewitness testimonies concerning the resurrection of Jesus (and their willingness to suffer and die for that testimony), can strengthen our faith in the Bible being the word of God. Let our faith in the Scriptures be such that we may say to our Adversary's attempts to batter down that wall, "You can put away your shovel on that subject."

Footnotes

http:/ /www.str.org/articles/is-the-newtestament-text-reliable#.U9PmiPldXCY
Barbara Kreiger, "Finding Herod's Tomb, Smithsonian Magazine: August 2009, p. 37.
"Don't We Need the Original Manuscripts?" Gospel Anchor: May 1991.
F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? p. 10.

Was Genesis 1-3 Sufficiently Witnessed?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 30 Sep 2024 15:39:21 +0000

by Terry Wane Benton

Jesus was there (John 1:1f); He said the story is factual (Mark 10:1-6) and that Satan was the liar from the beginning (John 8 ). The Spirit confirmed through Paul that death entered the world through Adam (Romans 5), and Satan’s head would be crushed (Genesis 3:15 compares to Romans 16:20). Thus, the greatest witnesses, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, say that Genesis is factual history. Therefore, we can trust the risen Jesus, who verified that Genesis is factual and true over the unverifiable myth of general evolution deceptively packaged as “science.”

Did the Catholic Church edit Matthew 28:19?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:57:32 +0000

Question:

What baptismal proclamation was used in your baptism? Probably you were baptized, “In the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Do you know that this Baptismal Proclamation is not the original text commanded by Jesus Christ as in Matthew 28:19? The Roman Catholic Church has edited and replaced the original text. Do you know that this Baptismal Proclamation has never been used in the Scriptures by the apostles in baptizing anyone in the First Century Church? Then why was it used for you?

Answer:

You make a charge that the text of a verse was altered; however, you provided no evidence of the change. You should be able to cite manuscripts before and after the change to prove your assertion. You didn't. In truth, you can't because such evidence doesn't exist. The manuscript evidence is consistent: "in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" appears from the earliest copies and citations of the Scriptures. Many of these manuscripts predate the declaration of the bishop in Rome that he was the Universal Father of the church.

One barrier to claiming that the biblical text was intentionally altered is that there are so many copies of the text scattered around the world. A concerted effort to alter the text cannot succeed because the editors cannot access all the manuscripts to make the change. Nor could editing be done without leaving traces of alterations. These are not computer documents. They were handwritten with ink. Your claim of adding additional words to the verse causes major problems because the remainder of Matthew would have to be rewritten to make room for the extra text. In some manuscripts, there isn't enough space. Changes like that leave evidence of erasure, changes in handwriting, and changes in the ink used. Thus, while you can theorize that a change was made, such a change would leave a trail of evidence that the change was made. Such a trail doesn't exist.

What you are advocating is a figment of your imagination.

The second problem is assuming that there is a set formula of words that must be recited at every baptism. The New Testament does not record what was exactly said during a baptism. "In the name of" indicates that the baptism is authorized by another and not by the person doing the baptism. To say "I baptize you" alone would leave the impression that you were doing it by your own authority. The one doing the baptism technically has no authority. He is merely assisting the one wishing to be baptized. Paul makes that clear when some Corinthians claimed to be followers of different people. "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name" (I Corinthians 1:13-15).

Since God is one -- united in all that the Godhead does -- then a baptism done by the authority of one is also a baptism done by the authority of all. If Jesus authorized something, then I know the Father's authority is also given (John 12:49-50), as is the authority of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13-14). Therefore, the claim that there is a difference in authorization for a baptism depending on the words used is also false.

Why does Mark 1:2-3 says it quotes Isaiah when it is not just from Isaiah?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 04 Apr 2024 20:15:26 +0000

Question:

Good day,

First, I need to say that I tried to find this answer. I'm unaware if you have answered this. I'm just struggling with the 'new' answers page as the old search mechanic allowed me to find the answers I'm looking for quicker, but I'll probably still get used to it using the new one.

Now, to my question, while watching an apologetics channel I like, an atheist New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman, points out that Mark 1:2-3 quotes Isaiah, which Isaiah never said. The apologist quotes Craig S. Keener, saying Matthew combined the Zechariah and Jeremiah prophecies; now I read your answer on that apparent "contradiction" when someone else asked. I agree that we don't know why Matthew quotes what he quotes. That's not the concern I have, but the apologist argues that Mark does the same in Mark 1:2-3, basically combining different prophecies into one but only quoting one, in this instance Isaiah in Mark, what would your answer be on Mark 1:2-3 and why he quotes Isaiah when Isaiah never said anything as such?

Kind regards.

Answer:

If you look at a variety of translations of Mark, you will notice that some say, "As it is written in the Prophets" (NKJV), and others say, "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet" (NASB). The difference is due to a variation in the manuscripts.

When there is a variation, scholars apply rules to help determine which reading is most likely close to the original text. One rule is that older texts are preferred over newer texts on the assumption that the more often a text is copied, the more mistakes will appear. In this case, it doesn't help because we have old manuscripts in both camps.

"Written in the Prophets"

Codex Alexandria (fifth century)
Codex Cyprius (ninth century)
Codex Washingtonianus (fourth or fifth century)
Minuscule 13 (thirteenth century)
Minuscule 28 (eleventh century)
Minuscule 1010 (twelfth century)
The Byzantine manuscripts (fourth to tenth centuries)

"Written in Isaiah the prophet"

Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century)
Codex Vaticanus (fourth century)
Codex Regius (eighth century)
Codex Sangallensis (ninth century)
Codex Monacensis (tenth century)

Another rule is that more obscure is preferred over clearer text, assuming copists are tempted to fix the manuscripts while making copies. This rule doesn't always work because a mistake in copying can make a text less clear. It is this rule that caused the newer composite manuscripts to add "Isaiah" to Mark 1:2.

We must keep in mind that quotes in ancient documents are less rigid than modern-day quoting methods. If you state basically what another person said or wrote, even if you modify it slightly to match your use of the quote, it is still counted as a quote. So if Mark did say "Isaiah" even though he quoted both Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3, it would mean that he is putting emphasis on what Isaiah said. Recall that Mark wrote for the Romans, and they would not be familiar with the Old Testament prophets, so we could say that Mark was simplifying his reference.

It has also been pointed out that while Mark used the wording from Malachi at the beginning ("Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me"), Isaiah had stated something similar in his own writing ("A voice is calling, "Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God."). Thus, what Malachi said had first been said by Isaiah, just in different words. Thus, Isaiah is credited because he originally stated the prophecy.

Response:

Thank you so much. I completely understand it now.

God bless you.

The Reliability of the Bible

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:38:03 +0000

by Zeke Flores

There are several ways to establish the reliability of the Bible.

One is by manuscript evidence. There are thousands of manuscripts, both whole and partial, of Old and New Testament books that provide harmonized agreement on the teaching of the Bible. Though the original documents are long lost, many of the copies date to within a lifetime of the original author, and the sheer magnitude of the copies attest to their careful preservation.

Another is the archeological evidence. The people, places, and events written are being corroborated almost daily in archeological digs throughout the Middle East.

Yet another is the prophetic evidence. The Bible includes predictions of events that could not be known by guessing or even common sense. For instance, the prophecies concerning Christ's birth alone number in the hundreds. The odds that just a handful of them could be fulfilled in any one man is statistically staggering. That they were all fulfilled in a specific man, Jesus, is statistically impossible. And yet, they were.

However, perhaps one of the most compelling evidence of the Bible's truth is its consistent message of salvation. From cover to cover, it is the only holy book compiled that deals with God's appeal to man for his redemption.

He does, indeed, know the beginning from the end and everything in between.

"Remember the former things long past,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like Me,
Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things which have not been done,
Saying, 'My purpose will be established,
And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'" (Isaiah 46:9-10).