Many claim that we have problems concerning the large number of years that separate the manuscripts from the events that they refer to. But it is interesting to note that, unlike the Qur'an, the Bible does not speak of events that happened with such an enormous time between those events and when they were written down.

Lookup a word or passage in the Bible

In fact, apart from the book of Revelation and the three letters of John, when we look at the rest of the New Testament books, there is no longer any solid basis for dating them later than 80 AD, or within 50 years of the death of Jesus Christ.

Now friends, for your information, of the New Testament most was likely to have been written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and perhaps even before the fire of Rome (64 AD), and the subsequent persecution of Christians.

Written Before 70 AD ?

Well it is really obvious if we think about what we do know from the "reliable but lesser" historical documents. For it is from these that we have learnt some of what these events meant and actually were. It is from these historical writtings and archeaology that we know about the of the fall of Jerusalem, it is from these that we know of the fire of Rome and many other events of the times.

Notice that none of these events, are mentioned in any of the New Testament writings. But if as some claim these manuscripts and documents are written so much later than the accepted dates, then these should somewhere mention the fall of Jerusalem, and the fire of Rome. For both of these events would have had a major impact upon the Christian Community at that time. And would reasonably expect that these would warrant at least a passing mantion within the writtings.

However neither of these are mentioned by the writters of the New Testament. Why? Well again if one uses the God given logic that one has the answer is right there in the manuscripts. These events are not mentioned because they had not happened at the time that these manuscripts were written. And so it is that we can safely assume that these documents pre-date these events. For had these documents been compiled in the second century as some claim, then these three events would have been mentioned.

In fact we can take this same logic even further. For we know that the martyrdom of Stephen was enough of an event for the historian Luke, to mention this in his writtings, along with the persecution of the Christian Community that followed this. Now these facts are not disputed as they are also witnessed to by other writers.

But let us think for one minute, if the death of Stephen is mentioned by the writer Luke, and if as some say this was written years later, then where is the mention of the martyrdoms of James in 62 AD, Paul in 64 AD, and Peter in 65 AD. These were the leaders in the church. So their deaths would have been just as momentous if not more so for the early Christian community. Yet we find none of these deaths referred to in any of the 27 canonized books of the New Testament. And significantly not at all within the book of Acts, which is the most comprehensive historical record we have of the early church.

Thus again there can be only one explanation for this, the manuscripts were written before these events. So we can see that these writtings come from before 62 AD, or a mere 30 years after the death of Jesus.

So once again I suggest to you all, that simply taking the thoughts of others without researching for yourself, leaves one with a proposition that holds about much validity as a fishing net does water. None at all.

Page Top