A Brief Sample of Old Testament Archaeological Corroboration | Cold Case Christianity. I’ve learned to test witnesses in my criminal investigations before trusting their testimony, and I evaluate them with the template we typically use in jury trials. One dimension of this template is corroboration: Is there any verifying evidence supporting the claims of the eyewitness? Corroborative evidence is what I refer to as “touch point” evidence. I don’t expect a surveillance video confirming every statement made by a witness, but I do expect small “touch point” corroborations.
The authors of the Bible make a variety of historical claims, and many of these claims are corroborated by archaeological evidence. Archaeology is notoriously partial and incomplete, but it does offer us “touch point” verification of many Biblical claims. Here are just a few of the more impressive findings related to the Old Testament: Related to Belshazzar Belshazzar, king of Babylon, was another historic king doubted by critics.
Related Posts In This Series: J. The Comparatively Rich Archaeological Corroboration of the Old Testament | Cold Case Christianity. A Brief Sample of Archaeology Corroborating the Claims of the New Testament | Cold Case Christianity. Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, a 19th Century English historian and prolific writer, held a pervasive anti-Biblical bias. He believed the historical accounts in the Book of Acts were written in the mid-2nd Century. Ramsay was skeptical of Luke’s authorship and the historicity of the Book of Acts, and he set out to prove his suspicions. He began a detailed study of the archaeological evidence, and eventually came to an illuminating conclusion: the historical and archaeological evidence supported Luke’s 1st Century authorship and historical reliability: “(There are) reasons for placing the author of Acts among the historians of the first rank” (Sir William Ramsay, St.
Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen, p. 4). Ramsay became convinced of Luke’s reliability based on the accurate description of historical events and settings. “One of the most remarkable tokens of (Luke’s) accuracy is his sure familiarity with the proper titles of all the notable persons who are mentioned . . . J. The Case for the Reliability of the New Testament (Free Bible Insert) | Cold Case Christianity. How Do We Know the Bible Is True? The best-selling book in history remains one of the most controversial. Revered by Christians as God's holy Word, the Bible spans centuries of history, contains a variety of literary styles and culminates in the person of Jesus Christ. But how do we know the Bible is true? Isn't it just a collection of stories and myths? Even if it contains some history, is there any way we can trust it completely?
What is the Bible? Answering these questions requires that we understand what the Bible is. It's not a book that arrived in complete form at one point in history. It is called God's Word even though God did not physically write it. The Bible Today: Miraculous or Not? Today the Bible is controversial for several reasons. In a largely naturalistic age, meaning belief only in the material world, miracles are often doubted. Truth and the Bible Asking if the Bible is true, means that we need to have some understanding of truth. The Bible makes some very distinctive truth claims.
Jesus and the Bible. Top 10 Reasons the Bible is True | The Essential Bible Blog.
Comparative Chart on Perspectives of Creationism. Old Earth Creationism. Young Earth Creationism. Historical Creationism. What Should We Teach About Creation? The following is an edited transcript of the audio. How far should we go in teaching creationism in the church? How important or unimportant is it? I assume the "-ism" on the end of creation has an agenda in terms of the age of the earth or the age of man or whatever. Let me just say a few general things. 1) We should teach without any qualification that God created the universe and everything in it. It wasn't always here. 2) Secondly, I think we should preach that he made it good. 3) Thirdly, I think we should preach that he created Adam and Eve directly, that he made them of the dust of the ground, and he took out of man a woman.
And we should teach that man had his beginning not millions of years ago but within the scope of the biblical genealogies. That's not the age of the earth issue there. Or he might take another view that these days are ages. Or he might take Sailhamer's view, which is where I feel at home. But I could be wrong about that, you know. . ©2014 Desiring God Foundation. Book Review: Should Christians Embrace Evolution? Does the Bible Teach a Young Earth? Note from Ron Miller - I include this article on my page as representative of the position taken by some true Bible believers that the days of Genesis One are not 24 hour days, and that the earth and universe may fairly old. Young Earth is the theory that the earth was created in 4004 BC. I believe that conservative Christians may disagree on this point and yet tolerate each other within the fellowship of the Body of Christ. For a discussion of those anchors of the faith that define the bounds of what the true faith is, see my article Anchors of the Christian Faith.
By Matt Perman "On the basis of internal evidence, it is this writer's conviction that yom [the Hebrew word for day] in Genesis one could not have been intended by the Hebrew author to mean a literal twenty-four-hour day," concludes Dr. Hugh Ross, an excellent scientist and Christian, has provided very convincing arguments that the days of Genesis one are not intended as 24 hour periods of time. Moses' purpose in Genesis one. What Is R.C. Sproul's Position on Creation? by Karisa Schlehr. We are commonly asked for a clarification of R.C.
Sproul’s position on Creation. Here is his commentary on the Westminster Confession’s phrase “…in the space of six days.” In the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good. In the Genesis account of creation, we read; “So the evening and the morning were the first day” (Gen. 1:5).
This narrative proceeds from the first day to the sixth, each time referring to “the evening and the morning” and numbering the day. On the seventh day, God rested (Gen. 2:2). In our time a considerable number of theories have arisen denying that the creation, as we know it, took place in twenty-four hour days. This crisis has resulted in several attempts to reinterpret the Genesis account of creation.
Actually the Bible does not explicitly teach geocentricity anywhere. We have a problem not only with a six-day creation, but also with the age of the earth. The Doctrine of Creation - Wayne Grudem.