Evidence testifies to the truth of the Bible

LaFleur: Catholics historically did NOT regard the Apocrypha as inspired like the other books that today we know of as “the Canon”. The KJB of the Reformation put them in their for historical interest and with the idea that most, I suppose, of the content is generally edifying, but they soon corrected their ERROR and in later editions those NON-BIblical books were dropped.

@Jack: The Bible is inspired, the KJB is the faithful and inspired translation in English. The division to chapters and verses is not inspired, but does still serve the purpose and works wonderfully for it, and the modern versionist custom of combining verses in what they think are paragraphs is confusing.

@Timothy: Simon Greenleaf, avowed atheist, challenged by a student one day to put his denial of the Resurrection to his same challenge of never issuing conclusions without first considering the evidence, he did consider the documentary evidence and known historical context, etc, etc, and concluded that any impartial jury must find as he did: “The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence”. That Jesus indeed rose from the dead.

The book of Judas is a laugh riot. Discarded as transparently farcical by the ones who discarded it way back when, it is an example of the Alexandrians who were already causing trouble from the time of the first martyrdom, of Stephen. as recorded in Acts.

Another skeptic tried to discredit the Bible in the 19th century by proving Paul’s travels as fiction and dug up dozens of sites in Turkey that corroborated the book of Acts. This theme has left atheists shame-faced through millenia because the put their trust in somebody hustling some new myth to try to deny it.


%d bloggers like this: