Recently I read an article that discussed the possibility that the bible was completely made up and that it was written hundreds of years after the supposed time of Christ and was solely based on the Old Testament prophecy of the messiah, which it simply fulfilled.
While I always have had a sense of faith and in the past few months I have "rediscovered my faith" it is questions like this that upset me, this due to the fact that I cannot answer them myself, and that they deeply damage my faith and discourage me from practicing it the way I should.
This article seemed to bring up valid points and I suppose my main question would be if the bible was made up of first hand accounts (such as eyewitnesses), and if there was any proof that it was.
I am really troubled over this and would much appriciate some help on clarifing the origins of the bible
please pay no attention to this kind of propaganda. most of the manuscripts that have been dated are from the 1st century. so no way, don't be misled by these kind of accusations. what is basically rolled up in a few sentences is pure ignorance, the fact that the earliest complete bible is dated from the 4th century doesnt mean it was the first bible. that is the oldest surviving copy of it. It was compiled together later, but the biblical books independently existed before the 3rd and 4th centuries. they are so much refereed to in the letter of the early church fathers. The John Rylands Fragment John 18:31-33 (117-138 AD) is the earliest known copy of any portion of the New Testament is from a papyrus codex (2.5 by 3.5 inches). It dates from the first half of the second century A.D. 117-138. The papyrus is written on both sides and contains portions of five verses from the gospel of John (18:31-33,37-38). Because this fragment was found in Egypt a distance from the place of composition (Asia Minor) it demonstrates the chain of transmission. The fragment belongs to the John Rylands Library at Manchester, England.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.
I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.
How authentic one choose to view the bible is base don what is the "measuring rod" for authenticity.
Is it historical authenticity?
In that case the Bible is one of the best, if not the best, attested writings from ancient man.
It is, in terms of Historicity, far more authentic than any other historical writing we have.
EX:
In terms of writing about the NT, the oldest evidence we have is from the late 1st to early 2nd century, a frgament from the Gospel of John that proves that copies of the GOJ were in circulation less than 100 years after Jesus's "death". The oldest complet works we have are the codex's sinaiticus and vaticanus, both from the early to mid 300's, perhaps 300 years after the death of Christ, as an example, the oldest works we have about Alexander the great are from about 400 years after his death and Alexander was THE GREAT ONE.
Jesus was simply a "lowly crucified jew".
Now, if by authentic you mean "untampered" or "unedited" or "exactly like it was written orginally", then NO, of course the writings were edited when they where copied, BUT from what evidence we do have of the older manuscripts, like GOJ, to others even 1000 years after, the differnences are truly minimal and the big differences like the "comma johnneum" from 1John have been found, and noted in pretty much every bible ( or at least they should be).
