Wed 23 Jan 2008
Reserve Reading #1 – The NT Documents – Are They Reliable?
Posted by S.G.R. Webster under An Introduction to the New Testament
[32] Comments
-
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- Wednesday, Jan 23rd, 2008 at 12:06 am
- Category :
- An Introduction to the New Testament
- Tags :
- Do More :
- You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
-
On page 16, it mentions Article V1 of the Thirty-Nine Articles. What are the Thirty-Nine Articles?
I can’t really say that I had any one particular question after reading this section. It was all one big giant question mark. Maybe it’s just me, but I got really confused reading this. I understand that the NT is reliable, but all the particular things they were mentioning confused me.
On page 17 it talks about the Codex Sinaiticus and how the inclusion of the works (that were mentioned in that paragraph) alongside the Biblical writings probabaly indicates that they were accorded some degree of canonical status. What exactly does that mean to us, and does that even hold any value?
What are the “romance” books mentioned on the last page talking about?
Kind of the same question as alyssa, what should we think about books that didnt make it into the NT but were pretty close? do those have any value in our lives or should we just not worry about them since they didn’t make it into the NT?
Why do people have to use outside sources to properly date when the books were written if the books have already mentioned “in the days of king….”?
Have any writings (besides the Bible) been found that say anything about Jesus’ earlier years?
What is the Shepherd of Hermas mentioned on page 18?
What are the features that link the “Synoptic Gospels” and why is John not apart of them?
on the bottom of page 19 it talks about how the books of Luke and Acts were originally one book but they were separated. Why were they separated, and who was given the authority to separate them and add the account of Jesus being taken up into heaven?
This might not really relate to the text very much, but I kept reading about the apostles and it made me wonder about the apostolic church. What do you know about their roots and beliefs?
On page 7 it talks about the “Proto-Luke” why wasn’t that used instead of the normal Luke? Is there even that much of a difference?
Do we have any documents more recent than the ones mentioned in this book since this was written quite some time ago.
Why does the author go into such great detail over whether or not it’s necessary for the New Testament to be reliable in the first chapter? It seems like he spent a lot of time explaining that particular issue when it seems obvious that if the Bible were not true, and if the stories within the Bible were false, then our faith would be in false hope.
Is there any significant reason that the Gospels were split up, or for that matter any of the books that were separated?
the reading talks about how there are 5000 manuscripts of the NT or portions of it, and compares them to other less numerous manuscripts of other ancient documents…i was wondering if the new testament is the only ancient document that has so much early evidence behind it or are there others?
on pg.17 it talks about the Muratorian Fragment. What is the significance of the Muratorian Fragment?
On page 14, what is the other approach known as Textual Critism?
When it talked about the things Jerome identified, it said they were alike and had similarities to other books of the bible, but were they actually those books, or were they just similar writings, i just don’t understand all these different writings.
My question is about Acts being called “Proto-Luke” which it talks about on page 19. What did they mean by calling it a rough draft to Luke? Did they just mean that it kind of leads into it? Also, along with Amanda’s, why were they separated and who separated them?
Ok so on pg. 20 it says that the book of acts shared the authority and prestige of the 3rd gospel… im confused cause its not considered part of the gospel?
On page 10 it mentions that there are over 5,000 Greek manusripts of the New Testament. What did most ofthese manuscripts contain?
On page 9 Lightfoot Tischendorf and Tregelles are mentioned, why would their writings be significant? were they historians or philosophers?
I guess i have more of a comment. By Reading through these chapters i learned a lot of things that ifeel like i should have know, but didn’t know. For example different facts like how many letter Paul wrote. I didn’t realize that he worte 13 letters to churches and individuals. I also didn’t know that Luke was the author of Acts and that Acts is a continuation of Luke. I have never really known exactly how much evidence there was to support the New Testament writings, but reading pages 10-11 shocked me. I didn’t know there were that many different sources to support the New Testament! I feel like i have spent more time studying the Bible itself, but not mush time at all learing about from where it originated and how it was put together. I felt like I learned a range of new things that i should have already know by reading these couple of chapters.
What is the author talking about when he mentions Lightfoot, Tischendorf, and Tregelles on page 9?
how can one be a true Christian and not even believe that Christ lived at all? (pg. 1)
Who is Lightfoot and why is he siginificant?
A girl from work i was talking to was questioning how we know God’s word is actually true. She grew up listening to it but she still doesn’t think its true. I was a little stunned when i heard this i didn’t know what to say. These shapter have encouraged me so i will be able to respond and maybe try to help them.
On pg. 4 It says that the first Three Gospels have certain featuress which link them together. what features are in the first three that link them that isn’t in the other one, John?
Codex Sinaiticus on pg 17.. My question is similar to Alyssa’s. It talked about its canonical status, which means what to us?
What are the “certain features” that link the Synopitc Gospels together? pg4
Why are people so quick to make philosophical presuppositions (pg 9)?