Have you heard someone say:
“The Bible we have today is a copy of a copy of a mistranslation of a copy of a copy of something that was an account by someone who wasn’t an eyewitness to the events.”
You may believe this or have heard this argument used to weaken or invalidate any defense of the historicity, modern relevance or authority of the Bible.
If you’ve ever wondered or worried about these issues?:
-The 400,000 textual discrepancies in the bible manuscripts.
-The fact that we don’t have any original letters, only copies.
-Were the gospels just wishful later era reinterpretations of who Jesus was and what he did?
-What about the alleged and/or obvious contradictions?
-Is the bible really inerrant (without error)?
Arguments Against the Reliability of the Gospels
1. We don’t Have the Original Gospel Manuscripts.
“The copies of copies of copies argument”
2. The Gospels are later-era reinterpretations of who Jesus was and what he did.
“The myths & legends argument”
…to be continued next week