What is the most authentic bible?

Answer 1

A:Christianity is essentially concerned with faith, or belief. Authentic Christianity is therefore what is truly believed today by large numbers of people. Their beliefs do not have to correspond with what really once happened, about which we know little, but equally could do so. Roman Catholicism is just as authentic as Orthodox Christianity, and vice versa. Equally, Protestantism is authentic, as also Mormonism may be.

Whether or not there is a God, and whether or not Jesus was divine, these are all authentic forms of Christianity.

Answer 2

"Authenticity" is: "...having the origin supported by reliable, unquestionable evidence."

Evidence comes from different sources.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Heb.11:1)

So, on the one hand, this faithless world doubts and questions and disbelieves The Bible's origins. And it remains, for the most part [or entirely by some], unauthenticated in the world's eyes.

On the other hand, those rare individuals in the world who "believe" and "have faith" in what the Bible says have had the evidence contained therein "Divinely revealed" to them in their hearts and minds... and cultivate a personal relationship with its Author. In this internal spiritual place, their "questions" have been answered... and authenticated [unquestionably]... by the Bible's Author.

The rest of the world will continue to doubt and reject the Bible's authenticity until its Author returns and personally stands upon it once again.

"...neither will I have pity. A third part of thee shall die with the pestilence, and with famine shall they be consumed in the midst of thee: and a third part shall fall by the sword [war] round about thee; and I will scatter a third part into all the winds, and I will draw out a sword after them. Thus shall mine anger be accomplished, and I will cause My fury to rest upon them, and I will be comforted: they shall know that I the Lord have spoken it in My zeal, when I have accomplished My fury in them." (Ezek.5:11-13; see also Rev.16, God's fury poured out upon His return)

Note: The above passage has not been "unquestionably authenticated" yet, to this world's satisfaction. A rare few, on the other hand, "believe" it, trust it, and "in the substance of their faith" know it to be reliable and trustworthy information.

"...He who sent Me is reliable, and what I have heard from Him I tell the world." (John 8:26 NIV)

"Reliable": "Dependable in accuracy and honesty."

The Bible's Author says He is "dependable, accurate and honest" -- authentic.

Some "believe" it, and have the Author's proof personally revealed within them. Most don't, and have to wait for another time for their evidence, before they know. Such is the nature of "authentication."

Answer 3

There is not a lot that is entirely authentic in the Bible. Certainly the lists of kings of Israel, from Omri onwards, and the later kings of Judah are generally accepted as reliable, but scholars are beginning to recognise that conquests attributed to the time of King David should really be attributed to the time of Ahab. The Temple of Solomon may well have been an earlier Canaanite temple that was taken over by the Hebrew people - the floor plan seems to be identical to Canaanite temples found elsewhere.

The Babylonian Exile did happen, as did the Return from Exile, and much of the detail rings true. Scholars have noticed that Ezra seems almost to be a Moses-figure and some doubt whether he really existed.

The Books of Daniel and Esther are considered to be second-century Jewish novels, rather than deliberate forgeries.

We are then left with the New Testament.

The four New Testament gospels were originally anonymous and scholars say they could not have been written by eyewitnesses to the events they describe. Scholars have demonstrated that Matthew and Lukeare actually based on Mark, and that John was inspired by Luke, with some material taken direct fromMark. This alone does not make Matthew, Luke and John inauthentic, but it does mean that the existence of four accounts does not add any credence to the first. In fact, much significant material in each of the gospels contradicts material in the other gospels. Essentially gospel authenticity comes down to the authenticity of Mark, but we do not know where its author obtained his material.

Whether or not any of the material in Acts of the Apostles is authentic is a moot point. Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) says that we can never verify the martyrdom or even existence of Stephen. It has been pointed out that there is nothing in Paul's own epistles that supports the first missionary journey and in fact that journey is at odds with Paul's own account of his travels. The book, written early in the second century, is replete with miracles that Paul seems not to have known about, but also relies on the works of the Jewish historian Josephus to add historical depth to the story.

At least five and probably seven of the epistles attributed to Paul are authentic: Romans, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians and Philemon. The remainder were written in his name in order to add weight to the messages they contain, and are not authentic.

None of the epistles attributed to James, John, Jude or Peter was really written by the apostle whose name it bears. They are all pseudepigraphical works that relied on the names of those apostles to help have their messages accepted.

Answer 4

For those who believe that we are to live by every Word of God and that He is the only real author of all Scripture (many writers chosen to pen the words), the entire Bible is authentic. For those who seek exact detailed information, much of which is not given, then there will always be a level of doubt until absolutely proven.

Take King David for instance, for centuries his life has been in doubt. But recent archaeological finds have now put this thought to rest - for most, as there will always be skeptics.

For those who say that Daniel is a mere novel of a time period much later, truly miss the point of the Book. Daniel wrote his book during his long lifetime under Neo-Babylonian or Chaldean Empire (historically proven times). He served under both Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus both historical figures. As Daniel 2:21; 4:18 indicate, God works out His purpose through his servants even in the courts of pagan rulers. Not only does Daniel assert the God of Israel's sovereignty, it also points to future history locked-up until the end-times. It is the key to Revelation as any bible student fully knows.

In summary, the crux of the non-believer's argument is upon authorship and dates which history as a whole is not fully reliable on - even events a century old. They fail to understand or refuse to believe the Word of God is His - He is the only author. He uses people to write or record events He choses, when He choses. The time period of revealing the false teachings of Scripture have come and past. Science today is discovering so many proofs of the Bible's accuracy/authenticity that it is stunning to those who take the time and effort to read/study about it.

Answer 5

The King James Version of the Bible is the most authentic of all the English translations of the Bible; though many Christians may differ with this view.