A Testament to Facts

The B-I-B-L-E, yes thats the book for me! This childish ditty reminds Christians of the superiority of the scripture and the necessity of its reliability. When called into question, the New Testament is often criticized as a fraud and doubted because of its supernatural elements. Often, critics are attacking the message of the New Testament and fail to recognize its authenticity and reliability as a basic document. If sections of the New Testament is proven then the whole should also be considered true. Therefore, it is our role as Christians to discover the reliability of the gospels and reveal their historical accuracy. The New Testament contains historical markers that line up with the history of the early first century and is one of the most consistent documents in existence. Most importantly, our faith in the accuracy of the Bible is not groundless and therefore the message of scripture becomes (if possible) even more significant. Christians rely on the scriptures.

 Their reliability strengthens our trust in the words of God. 

Firstly, the historical accuracy of the New Testament is documented through the cohesion of the lives of Paul and the history of the first century. For instance, the figures of King Herod and Jesus Christ have been proven by non-biblical accounts and relate similar lives of each person. Geographical descriptions remain founded and have served to enlighten many in the quest for discovering various ancient places and details. Such as the journey's of Paul, which is not only supported by the writings under Emperor Nero, but the specific geographic details suggest accuracy and eyewitness accounts. Numerous events line up with trusted historical dates and provide a foundation for believing the authority of scripture. Several arguments arise such as "Oral Tradition is Unreliable" or the writers had a specific agenda hold little water when considering the culture of Jerusalem and the background of the Disciples. Firstly, oral tradition is considered a reliable means of relating facts and general meaning and secondly, must of the new testament was written down and then proceeded to copy. The idea of the writers possessing an agenda becomes silly when considering their subsequent torture, imprisonment, and death for the sake of the gospel. Selfishness could not carry men into sacrificing their lives for a personal agenda. Their agenda could not have succeeded due to the numerous eyewitness that observed the teachings of Jesus and could question the writings. Finally, the teachings of Jesus are confusing and if in possession of an agenda, these teachings would have been omitted. Not only do events support the reliability of the gospel, but the arguments prove irrelevant when considering the culture of the Jews. 

The manuscript evidence for the New Testament provides the greatest argument for the reliability of the gospel and Jesus' message. For instance,"There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.1 If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity." Even more so, these manuscripts can be cross-checked for accuracy and consistency between each article. The specific details of the New Testament's comparison to other ancient documents also suggests a bias toward the question of the New Testament (for more information go to carm.org/manuscript-evidence). To compound these details, "the internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure.  That is an amazing accuracy.  In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages.  The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000." A fragment of the gospel of John dates back to 29 years from its original writing and is simply unheard of within ancient documents. The manuscript evidence of the New Testament reveals the unheard accuracy of its ancient story and allows the Christian to trust the authority of scripture. 

Historically Accurate?

Paige is ignorant. This is not an ad hominem argument, merely an explanation of her foolish reasoning to forgo the lessons of history. History is one of the greatest gifts given to a literate society; we learn history so that we are not doomed to repeat it. Her explanation of history as determined by the winners is not only narrow-minded, but losses the compilation of winners and losers that create history. History is such a wonderful gift, a useful tool, and a inspiring message to the future. It should never be labeled elitist or racist. History is a story of facts. Sure, inconsistencies can occur, but the majority of history is founded upon archeological evidence and resources (books or oral stories) that have been tested for accuracy. Paige's claim that history is not objectively true boils down to her decision to disbelieve history and support that was poor reasoning. Objectively true is truth and to discredit the truth is to call it a lie. Therefore, Paige makes the assumption that history is a lie- obviously, she doesn't look at her car, phone, or streets. We live in a world that encapsulates the past and is defined by the advances made. History isn't a recording of the minority's uprising; it may include the lessons of civil rights and struggles against racism. History cannot be defined as subjective because it exists objectively. Furthermore, history is the "study of past events, particularly in human affairs" or "the past considered as a whole."Paige is changing history into something it is not in order to satisfy her belief in society's agenda. History is compiled based upon people's biases or the winner's power, yes they may have written some history down, but so did the losers. History is compiled based upon objective understanding of based events which is engendered by the the cohesion of winners and losers. 

The importance of the reliability of history is extremely important. It is our duty as citizens to check the accuracy of the facts and understand the perspective it was recorded in. While studying United States History, I came to understand the true reasoning behind the Civil War. It didn't ask as Abe Lincoln's call to free the slave and although that was a part of his motivation- the Civil War was fought due to dramatically different lifestyles, beliefs, and the need for resources. In the same thread, Prohibition seems ridiculous and foolish without understanding the motivation of the government, after seeking explanations history becomes a web of decisions based upon varying opinions. Subjectivity doesn't necessarily imply a crime, within the areas of history that have become subjective by society, it is man's role to bring the facts to light. The value is not removed purely by being subjective, in fact you can learn even more because the recorder was subjective for a specific reason. History is awesome. I love learning about history and discovering how past society's acted. To renounce the study of history because you believe it's decided by "winners", is to ignore the plight of Nathan Hale, Martin Luther King Jr., Abigail Adams. There dreams never came to fruition during their lifetimes and they died. Does that define losers or winners? Here lies the problem of labeling people in such a way- what makes them losers or winners? History doesn't depend on the outcome, it is the story of getting there. 

Socialism Sucks.

The simple rule taught at child, sharing is caring, is the main argument for socialism. It is defined as a compassionate means to alleviate the impoverished and helpless. As a economic system, socialism would produce a utopian society; a society transformed by mutual hard work and determination. The driving force of socialism stems from the association of socialism with compassion, however this is merely a naive view of the tendencies of socialism. Socialism is a compromise between capitalism and communism and exists to slowly destroy American principles of economic freedom. Also, socialism discourages the values and key components of American society- invention, creativity, and hard work. These two components compound and engender a system that 

demeans success and uplifts laziness. 

Firstly, Socialism is the economic system where the government owns the means of production. Institutions such as health care, business, and education are defined by the rigid and faulty hand of the government. The American government was established in order to check the power of a growing central government and guarantee the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Socialism, although preaching fairness and equal wealth, denounces the tenets of American liberty that founded are democratic system. Socialism marches toward communism and as such, celebrates the government's perfection and capability to dictate the lives of its citizens. Government functions as a system of protection and fairness. Therefore, it cannot steal from its citizens or sacrifice their rights in order to establish equal wages. Equality is not measured by the amount of money you make, nor the type of car or house. Instead of prompting citizens to enjoy government interference, American government should be encouraging independence and frugality. Socialism promotes a great sense of entitlement that corrodes the blessing of the rights we are appointed. The cruelty of communism stems from the mindset of socialism, that is, that government serves as a kind of salvation upon earth and must act in order to grant its citizens happiness and financial security. This task was not given to the American government and although it functions in the best interest of the people, it does not insure wealth and unmarred unhappiness. Socialism is producing a mindset within American of the government's correctness and ultimate power to declare truth. The similar mindset of socialism and capitalism produces a misunderstanding regarding the purpose of American government and the role of its citizens. 

Secondly, the facets of socialism promote laziness and even more so, idea of entitlement which furnishes a selfish mindset of greed and misunderstood equality. For instance, skills earned should not result in equal payment: a doctor should not be payed the same as a McDonald's employee. Occupations do have greater value in society than some, although a harsh fact, it is a poignant reality. Socialism decries the initiative and determination of American citizens as it continually raises taxes and cuts wages in order to produce equality. Welfare is beneficial for those incapable of working, but it produces a mentality of laziness and entitlement. It discourages workers to return to employment and continually cuts into the labors of workers in order to pay for their needs. Socialism would result in an apathetic society which is incapable of innovation or creativity. American society would simply produce a culture of selfishness and the desperate need for material equality. This idea stems from the corrupt thinking of socialism and therefore socialism promotes unhealthy thinking and action.