10/14/19

"THE BOOK OF PROVERBS" Listen To Your Parents (1:8-9) by Mark Copeland


"THE BOOK OF PROVERBS"

Listen To Your Parents (1:8-9)

INTRODUCTION

1. We saw that the beginning (principal part) of knowledge is to fear
   the Lord... - Pr 1:7
   a. You will more likely heed His counsel
   b. Unlike fools who despise wisdom and instruction

2. In addition to the Lord, we should listen to our parents... - Pr 1:8-9
   a. Counsel that follows right after an admonition to fear (yara') the
      Lord
   b. In fact, the same word (yara') is used elsewhere in regards to
      parents - Lev 19:3

[The admonition to listen to one's parents is repeated throughout the
book (Pr 4:1; 6:20; 23:22).  Consider some reasons why it is wise to
heed our parents...]

I. THE WISDOM OF LISTENING TO YOUR PARENTS

   A. THEIR KNOWLEDGE...
      1. Your parents know you better than anyone
         a. They fed you, clothed you, changed your diapers
         b. They saw you grow, how you responded to crisis, know your
            personality
      2. Parents have the potential to provide better advice than anyone else
         a. Unlike teachers, counselors, who see you only for a few
            minutes or hours
         b. Unlike friends who may be motivated to tell you what they
            want you to hear
      -- No one has a better opportunity to know what you need than your
         parents!

   B. THEIR EXPERIENCE...
      1. They have been where you are
      2. They are now where you are headed (if you should live as long)
      3. They are like sergeants leading their squads
         a. Sergeants are older, more experienced, more likely
            battle-hardy
         b. They have survived what new recruits have yet to experience
         c. It would be folly for a private to not listen to his sergeant
      -- Children with parents are blessed to have advice from those who
         traveled the same road, only much farther

   C. THEIR WISDOM...
      1. Their own experience provides one source of wisdom
      2. Their wisdom often includes that of their parents (your grandparents)
         a. Most people eventually appreciate their parents' advice
            - e.g., Pr 4:1-4
            1) "The greatest teacher I ever had was my mother." 
                 - George Washington
            2) "All that I am, or hope to be, I owe to my angel mother."
               - Abraham Lincoln
         b. Especially when their own kids come along
         c. So parents often have the accumulated wisdom of several
            generations
      3. Their wisdom may also include the wisdom of God!
         a. Especially if one is blessed to have Christian parents
         b. Who have studied that inspired wisdom passed down for many
            generations
      -- Children with Christian parents are blessed with wisdom from
         many sources!

[The wisdom of listening to your parents should be a no-brainer.  Only
the foolish and immature despise the advice and counsel of their parents
(Pr 15:5).  But there is not only the wisdom, there is also...]

II. THE BEAUTY OF LISTENING TO YOUR PARENTS

   A. THEIR WISDOM IS LIKE GRACEFUL JEWELRY...
      1. "a graceful garland for your head and pendants for your neck"- ESV
      2. "a graceful wreath to your head and ornaments about your neck"
         - NASB
      -- Like accessories worn to make one more attractive, beautiful,
         or handsome

   B. CHILDREN MADE ATTRACTIVE BY THEIR PARENTS' WISDOM...
      1. "That is, filial respect and obedience will be as ornamental to
         thee as crowns, diadems, and golden chains and pearls are to
         others." - Adam Clarke
      2. "The instructions and laws of parents being attended unto and
         obeyed by children, render them more lovely and amiable than
         any beautiful ornament whatever that can be put upon their
         heads;" - John Gill
      -- Children who revere their parents by heeding their counsel are
         made more attractive and appealing to others by such counsel

   C. COMPARE THE UGLINESS OF PARENTAL DISRESPECT...
      1. As expressed by King Agur, many children do not honor their
         parents - Pr 30:1,11
      2. Proverbs warn of the tragic end of those who dishonor parents
         - Pr 30:17; 20:20
      3. Perhaps influenced by the decrees found in the Law of Moses
         - Deut 27:16
         a. The penalty for cursing parents was death - Lev 20:9
         b. The penalty for a rebellious son was likewise - Deut 21:18-21
      -- Children who did not honor their parents were harshly judged by
         God in OT times

CONCLUSION

1. Fortunately, we live under the law of Christ...
   a. A time of grace, longsuffering, and mercy
   b. But a time where despising God's mercy will eventually be called
      into account - Ro 2:4-6

2. The law of Christ still expects children to respect their parents...
   a. To obey and honor them - Ep 6:1-2
   b. Even as Jesus honored His earthly parents - Lk 2:51-52

Note that as Jesus increased in wisdom, so He did in favor with God and
man.  His own example illustrates the truth of our lesson, and that
written later in Proverbs:

   "My son, do not forget my law, but let your heart keep my commands;
   for length of days and long life and peace they will add to you.
   Let not mercy and truth forsake you; bind them around your neck,
   write them on the tablet of your heart, and so find favor and high
   esteem In the sight of God and man." - Pr 3:1-4

May the wisdom of your own parents grace your neck, having been written
on your heart ...!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker 

Hazor and Old Testament Accuracy by Wayne Jackson, M.A.


Hazor and Old Testament Accuracy

by Wayne Jackson, M.A.


The city of Hazor lay almost nine miles north of the Sea of Galilee. During the time of Joshua, it was a Canaanite stronghold in northern Palestine. In the conquest of Canaan, as Joshua marched his army northward, he was confronted by a coalition of forces under the leadership of Jabin, King of Hazor. The biblical record declares that the Israelite army resoundingly defeated this confederation and burned Hazor to the ground (Joshua 11:1-14).
In excavations at Hazor (1955-1958, 1968), Yigael Yadin discovered evidence that this city had been destroyed in the thirteenth century B.C. He identified it with Joshua’s conquest. The problem with this assertion is this: it does not harmonize with scriptural chronology regarding the time of the Exodus from Egypt. The data contained in 1 Kings 6:1 indicate that the Exodus occurred some 480 years prior to the fourth year of Solomon’s reign (c. 966 B.C.), thus in the mid-fifteenth century B.C. Liberal critics, subscribing to the documentary hypothesis, simply dismiss 1 Kings 6:1 as an addition of some later time, and therefore chronologically worthless. It is interesting to note, however, that “the name of the month which appears in that text is the archaic form of the name and not the late one” (Davis, 1971, p. 29).
But the fact of the matter is, Professor Yadin’s discoveries revealed that there were two destructions at Hazor: one in the thirteenth century B.C. and another in the fifteenth century B.C. (Avi-Yonah, 1976, 2:481-482). Actually, this is precisely the picture presented in the Old Testament.
In addition to the conquest of Hazor during the time of Joshua in the mid-fifteenth century B.C., two centuries later, in the period of Israel’s judges, the Israelites again engaged the King of Hazor in battle. Under the leadership of Deborah and Barak (c. 1258 B.C.), the armies of Hazor, under Sisera, were decisively defeated (Judges 4:2ff.), and as professor Siegfried H. Horn observed, “undoubtedly Hazor was destroyed” (Horn, 1963, p. 31).
Once more, the precise accuracy of the biblical record has been vindicated, and the charges of liberal critics have been shown to be baseless.

REFERENCES

Avi-Yonah, Michael, et al. (1976), Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
Davis, John J. (1975), Moses and the Gods of Egypt (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Horn, Siegfried H. (1963), Records of the Past Illuminate the Bible (Washington, D.C.: Review & Herald).

Have the Bones of Jesus Been Found? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.



Have the Bones of Jesus Been Found?

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


Simcha Jacobovici, a television director, and movie director James Cameron (of Titanic fame) have teamed up to produce a television documentary for Discovery Channel titled “The Jesus Family Tomb.” In this production, Jacobovici suggests that the real tomb of Jesus has been discovered, complete with ossuaries for His body, Mary Magdalene’s body, His mother Mary’s body, and the body of Judah, allegedly the son of Jesus. This outlandish claim, although supposedly backed by scientific and historical “evidence,” is another sad example of senseless hype surrounding baseless claims about Jesus Christ.
The available historic evidence overwhelmingly destroys the false assertions made by Jacobovici. First, the idea that Jesus’ bones were buried would contradict the most historically accurate book ever written—the Bible. As Newsweek writers Miller and Chen wrote: “Good sense, and the Bible, still the best existing historical record of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, argue against Jacobovici’s claims” (2007). Indeed they do. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the most historically documented event in ancient history (see Butt, 2002). The New Testament documents have been examined with a scrutiny beyond any applied to other historical books, and their authenticity and reliability have dumbfounded the most skeptical observers. With one voice, the books of the New Testament declare that Jesus Christ was buried in a borrowed tomb, rose three days after His death, and ascended to heaven, leaving no bones behind to be buried in an ossuary.
Furthermore, besides the fact that Jacobovici’s idea goes against the Bible, other details militate against the tomb being Jesus’ (not that any are needed). For instance, the names on the ossuary were very common. In fact, almost one-fourth of women in Jerusalem at the time would most likely have been named Mary or some derivative form of the name (Miller and Chen, 2007). In addition, the tomb is of a wealthy family and was located in Jerusalem. But Jesus’ family was poor from Nazareth. As Alan Segal, religion professor at Barnard College, stated: “Why would Jesus’ family have a tomb outside of Jerusalem if they were from Nazareth? Why would they have a tomb if they were poor?” (as quoted in Miller and Chen).
In truth, this latest “discovery” is little more than an attempt to cash in on the hype created by Dan Brown (author of The Da Vinci Code) and his ilk. It is so devoid of truth and legitimate historical scholarship that it is more of a science fiction film than a documentary. This and a host of future attempts to cast doubt on the biblical narratives will come and go, but rest assured that “the Word of the Lord endures forever.”

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2002), “Jesus Christ—Dead or Alive?” Reason & Revelation, 22:9-15, February, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/121.
Miller, Lisa and Joanna Chen (2007), “Raiders of the Lost Tomb?” Newsweek, March 5, [On-line], URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17328478/site/newsweek/.


Has the Bible Been Transmitted To Us Accurately? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.



Has the Bible Been Transmitted To Us Accurately?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


[Editor’s Note: This article is taken from Appendix 1 of the author’s book The Quran Unveiled.]
The science of textual criticism is a field of inquiry that has been invaluable in ascertaining the original reading of the New Testament text. Textual criticism involves “the ascertainment of the true form of a literary work, as originally composed and written down by its author.”1 The fact that the original autographs do not exist,2 and that only copies of copies of copies of the original documents have survived, has led some falsely to conclude that the original reading of the New Testament documents cannot be determined. For example, Mormons frequently attempt to establish the superiority of the Book of Mormon over the Bible by insisting that the Bible has been corrupted through the centuries in the process of translation (a contention shared by Islam in its attempt to explain the Bible’s frequent contradiction of the Quran). However, a venture into the fascinating world of textual criticism dispels this premature and uninformed conclusion.
The task of textual critics—those who study the extant manuscript evidence that attests to the text of the New Testament—is to examine textual variants (i.e., conflicting readings between manuscripts involving a word, verse, or verses) in an effort to reconstruct the original reading of the text. What has this field of inquiry concluded with regard to the integrity and genuineness of the Bible?

IS THE OLD TESTAMENT STILL RELIABLE?3

If there are scribal errors in today’s manuscript copies of the Old Testament, many wonder how we can be certain the text of the Bible was transmitted faithfully across the centuries. Is it not possible that it was corrupted so that its form in our present Bible is drastically different from the original source?
The accuracy of the Old Testament text was demonstrated forcefully by the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls. Prior to 1947, the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of significant length did not date earlier than the ninth century A.D. However, when the Dead Sea scrolls were found (containing portions of all Old Testament books except Esther), this discovery pushed the record of the Old Testament text back almost 1,000 years. These copies were produced sometime between 200 B.C. and A.D. 100. One scroll found in the Qumran caves was of particular importance. It was a scroll of the book of Isaiah, which had only a few words missing. What was amazing about this scroll is that when it was compared to the text of Isaiah produced 900 years after it, the two matched almost word for word, with only a few small variations. In commenting on this comparative reading of the two texts, A.W. Adams observed:
The close agreement of the second Isaiah Scroll from the Dead Sea with the manuscripts of the ninth and tenth centuries shows how carefully the text tradition which they represent has been preserved…. We may therefore be satisfied that the text of our Old Testament has been handed down in one line without serious change since the beginning of the Christian era and even before.4
Amazingly, a comparison of the standard Hebrew texts with that of the Dead Sea scrolls has revealed that the two are virtually identical. The variations (about 5%) occurred only in minor spelling differences and minute copyists’ mistakes. Thus, as Rene Pach√© noted: “Since it can be demonstrated that the text of the Old Testament was accurately transmitted for the last 2,000 years, one may reasonably suppose that it had been so transmitted from the beginning.”5
Even within the various passages of Scripture, numerous references to copies of the written Word of God can be found. A copy of the “book of the law” was discovered in the Temple during the days of King Josiah (c. 621 B.C.), thus demonstrating that Moses’ writings had been protected over a span of almost 1,000 years (2 Kings 22). Other Old Testament passages speak of the maintenance of the Holy Writings across the years (Jeremiah 36; Ezra 7:14; Nehemiah 8:1-18).
During Jesus’ personal ministry, He read from a scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue at Nazareth, and called it “Scripture” (Luke 4:16-21)—a technical term employed in the Bible for a divine writing. Jesus endorsed the truth that the Old Testament Scriptures had been preserved faithfully. Even though Jesus read from a copy of Isaiah, He still considered it the Word of God. Hence, Scripture had been preserved faithfully in written form. Furthermore, even though Jesus condemned the scribes of His day for their many sins, never did He even intimate they were unfaithful in their work as scribes. Indeed, Jesus gave approval not only to copies, but even to translations (e.g., the Septuagint) of the Old Testament by reading and quoting from them.
One of the great language scholars of the Old Testament text was Dr. Robert Dick Wilson. A master of over 35 languages, Wilson carefully compared the text of the Old Testament with inscriptions on ancient monuments. As a result of his research, he declared: “We are scientifically certain that we have substantially the same text that was in the possession of Christ and the apostles and, so far as anybody knows, the same as that written by the original composers of the Old Testament documents.”6

IS THE NEW TESTAMENT STILL RELIABLE?

What about the integrity of the New Testament? One may say unhesitatingly and confidently that the uncorrupted preservation of the New Testament has been thoroughly established. In evaluating the text of the New Testament, textual critics work with a large body of manuscript evidence, the amount of which is far greater than that available for any ancient classical author.7 As of 2018, the number of Greek manuscripts—whole and partial—that attest to the New Testament stands at an unprecedented 5,874.8 This figure does not include the other sources of evidence such as the superabundance of patristic citations and ancient versions. The best manuscripts of the New Testament are dated at roughly A.D. 350, with perhaps one of the most important of these being the Codex Vaticanus, “the chief treasure of the Vatican Library in Rome,” and the Codex Sinaiticus, which was purchased by the British from the Soviet Government in 1933.9 Additionally, the Chester Beatty papyri, made public in 1931, contain eleven codices (manuscript volumes), three of which contain most of the New Testament (including the Gospel accounts). Two of these codices boast a date in the first half of the third century, while the third is slightly later, being dated in the last half of the same century.10 The John Rylands Library vaunts even earlier evidence. A papyrus codex containing parts of John 18 dates to the time of Hadrian, who reigned from A.D. 117 to 138.11
Other attestation to the accuracy of the New Testament documents can be found in the writings of the so-called “apostolic fathers”—men who lived from A.D. 100 to 550, and who often quoted from the New Testament documents.12 Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Tatian, Clement of Rome, and Ignatius (writing before the close of the second century) all provided citations from one or more of the Gospel accounts.13 Other witnesses to the authenticity of the New Testament are the Ancient Versions, which consist of the text of the New Testament translated into different languages. The Old Latin and the Old Syriac are the most ancient, being dated from the middle of the second century.14
The fact is, the New Testament enjoys far more historical documentation than any other volume ever known. Compared to the 5,700+ Greek manuscripts authenticating the New Testament, there are only 643 copies of Homer’s Iliad, which is undeniably the most famous book of ancient Greece. No one doubts the text of Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars, but we have only 10 copies of it, the earliest of which was made 1,000 years after it was written. We have only two manuscripts of Tacitus’ Histories and Annals, one from the ninth century and one from the eleventh. The History of Thucydides, another well-known ancient work, is dependent upon only eight manuscripts, the oldest of these being dated about A.D. 900 (along with a few papyrus scraps dated at the beginning of the Christian era). And The History of Herodotus finds itself in a similar situation. “Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS [manuscripts—DM] of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.”15 Thus Bruce declared: “It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians.”16 Even as far back as 1968, Bruce Metzger, longtime professor of New Testament language and literature at Princeton, stated: “The amount of evidence for the text of the New Testament…is so much greater than that available for any ancient classical author that the necessity of resorting to emendation is reduced to the smallest dimensions.”17 Truly, to have such abundance of copies for the New Testament from within 70 years of their writing is nothing short of astounding.18
In one sense, the work of the textual critic has been unnecessary, since the vast majority of textual variants involve minor matters that do not affect doctrine as it relates to one’s salvation. Even those variants that might be deemed doctrinally significant pertain to matters that are treated elsewhere in the Bible where the question of authenticity and originality is unobscured. No feature of Christian doctrine is at stake. As Ewert noted: “[V]ariant readings in our manuscripts do not affect any basic teaching of the NT.”19 Old Testament scholar Gleason Archer wrote in agreement:
In fact, it has long been recognized by the foremost specialists in textual criticism that if any decently attested variant were taken up from the apparatus at the bottom of the page and were substituted for the accepted reading of the standard text, there would in no case be a single, significant alteration in doctrine or message.20
Nevertheless, textual critics have been successful in demonstrating that currently circulating New Testaments do not differ substantially from the original autographs. When all of the textual evidence is considered, the vast majority of discordant readings have been resolved.21 One is brought to the firm conviction that we have in our possession the New Testament as God intended.
The world’s foremost textual critics have confirmed this conclusion. Sir Frederic Kenyon, longtime director and principal librarian at the British Museum, whose scholarship and expertise to make pronouncements on textual criticism was second to none, stated: “Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.”22 The late F.F. Bruce, longtime Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism at the University of Manchester, England, remarked: “The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.”23 J.W. McGarvey, declared by the London Times to be “the ripest Bible scholar on earth,”24 conjoined: “All the authority and value possessed by these books when they were first written belong to them still.”25 And the eminent textual critics Westcott and Hort put the entire matter into perspective when they said:
Since textual criticism has various readings for its subject, and the discrimination of genuine readings from corruptions for its aim, discussions on textual criticism almost inevitably obscure the simple fact that variations are but secondary incidents of a fundamentally single and identical text. In the New Testament in particular it is difficult to escape an exaggerated impression as to the proportion which the words subject to variation bear to the whole text, and also, in most cases, as to their intrinsic importance. It is not superfluous therefore to state explicitly that the great bulk of the words of the New Testament stand out above all discriminative processes of criticism, because they are free from variation, and need only to be transcribed.26
Writing over one hundred years ago in the late 19th century, and noting that the experience of two centuries of investigation and discussion had been achieved, these scholars concluded: “[T]he words in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part of the whole of the New Testament.”27 This means that 999/1000th of the text of the New Testament is the same today as when it came from the pens of the inspired writers. The miniscule portion that remains uncertain (1/1000th) consists of trivial details that have no material effect on matters of faith or doctrine. J.I. Packer, Board of Governors Professor of Theology at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia, summarized the facts: “[F]aith in the adequacy of the text is confirmed, so far as it can be, by the unanimous verdict of textual scholars that the biblical text is excellently preserved, and no point of doctrine depends on any of the small number of cases in which the true reading remains doubtful.”28 Indeed, again in the words of textual scholar F.F. Bruce: “By the ‘singular care and providence’ of God the Bible text has come down to us in such substantial purity that even the most uncritical edition of the Hebrew or Greek…cannot effectively obscure the real message of the Bible, or neutralize its saving power.”29 Therefore, the charge alleged by Muslims (and Mormons), that the Bible has been corrupted in transmission, is completely false.

THE QURAN COMPARED

Anyone who has taken time to investigate the manuscript evidence that exists for ascertaining the original state of the Bible knows that we have the Bible in its near-original condition—a claim that has not been established for the Quran. The attention given to ascertaining the original state of the Quranic text pales in comparison to that given to the Bible in general, and the New Testament in particular. As John Gilchrist observed:
[T]here is no translation of the Qur’an to compare with translations of the Bible such as the Revised Standard Version or New American Standard Version. These were done by committees of scholars and the result has been a remarkably consistent and accurate rendering of the original. Every well-known translation of the Qur’an has been the work of an individual and, to one degree or another in every case, the value of the final product is tempered by the presence of the author’s own personal convictions and interpretations.30
Of course, unsubstantiated claims are made for the transmission of the Quran: “[A]ll Muslims agree that the Quran is the verbatim revelation of God. They also agree about its text and content; that is, no variant texts are found among any of the schools.”31 The fact that Muslims claim unanimity of opinion regarding the purity of the Quranic text does not prove that the Quran has been exempt from the peculiar attribute of textual variation to which all documents from history are subject.
Ironically, the Quran itself offers both implicit and explicit endorsement of the integrity of the biblical text—at least in its condition at the time the Quran arose in the early seventh century:
And believe in that which I reveal, confirming that which ye possess already (of the Scripture), and be not first to disbelieve therein, and part not with My revelations for a trifling price, and keep your duty unto Me. Confound not truth with falsehood, nor knowingly conceal the truth…. Enjoin ye righteousness upon mankind while ye yourselves forget (to practice it)? And ye are readers of the Scripture! Have ye then no sense?…. O Children of Israel! Remember My favour wherewith I favoured you and how I preferred you to (all) creatures (Surah 2:41-42,44,47).32
Or do they say, “He has forged it”? Say: “Had I forged it, then can you obtain no single (blessing) for me from Allah. He knows best of that whereof you talk (so glibly)! Enough is He for a witness between me and you! And He is Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful.” Say: “I am no bringer of new‑fangled doctrine among the Messengers, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I follow but that which is revealed to me; I am but a Warner open and clear.” Say: “Do you see? If (this teaching) be from Allah, and you reject it, and a witness from among the Children of Israel testifies to its similarity (with earlier scripture), and has believed while you are arrogant, (how unjust you are!). Truly, Allah does not guide a people unjust.” The Unbelievers say of those who believe: “If (this Message) were a good thing, (such men) would not have gone to it first, before us!” And seeing that they do not guide themselves thereby, they will say, “This is an (old,) old falsehood!” And before this, was the Book of Moses as a guide and a mercy: and this Book confirms (it) in the Arabic tongue; to admonish the unjust, and as Glad Tidings to those who do right…. “O our people! We have heard a Book revealed after Moses, confirming what came before it” (Surah 46:8-12,30).33
Say: “O People of the Book! do you disapprove of us for no other reason than that we believe in Allah, and the revelation that has come to us and that which came before (us), and (perhaps) that most of you are rebellious and disobedient?…. If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: but many of them follow a course that is evil. O Messenger! proclaim the (Message) which has been sent to you from your Lord. If you did not, you would not have fulfilled and proclaimed His Mission. And Allah will defend you from men (who mean mischief). For Allah guides not those who reject Faith. Say: “O People of the Book! You have no ground to stand upon unless you stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord.” It is the revelation that comes to you from your Lord, that increases in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But you do not grieve over (these) people without Faith. Those who believe (in the Qur’an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,—any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,—on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve (Surah 5:59,66-69; cf. 2:62).34
And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers (Surah 10:95).35
These verses from the Quran provide confirmation of Muhammad’s belief in the accuracy of the Law and the Gospel (cf. Surah 87:18-19; 6:155-158). They even appeal to a Jew, contemporary to Muhammad, who verified that the Quran confirmed the Scripture that preceded it. Indeed, the Quran claims to be in unison and harmony with, and complementary to, previous Scripture (the Bible).
The underlying thought in all of these Quranic verses is that the Quran is to be accepted, reverenced, and obeyed every bit as much as the previous Scriptures (i.e., the Bible). These verses are worded in such a way that they assume the legitimacy and acceptability of the Bible. The Quranic criticism directed against Jews (and Christians) is not that they corrupted their Scriptures (cf. Surah 7:169-170). Rather, they are criticized for not concluding that Muhammad and the Quran were the confirmatory sequel to the previous revelations of Jews and Christians. In fact, when the Jews insisted to Muhammad that they had been given sufficient knowledge by means of the Torah—an admission made by the Quran itself [“Again, We gave the Scripture unto Moses, complete for him who would do good, an explanation of all things, a guidance and a mercy, that they might believe in the meeting with their Lord” (Surah 7:155)]—Muhammad responded with a new surah: “[I]f all the trees in the earth were pens, and the sea, with seven more seas to help it, (were ink), the words of Allah could not be exhausted” (Surah 31:27).36 If the Quran endorses the integrity of the Bible, and we have in existence manuscripts of the Bible that predate the Quran, then the accuracy and authenticity of the Bible stands vindicated—not only by the voluminous manuscript evidence—but even by the Quran itself.
To repeat: We can know that the Bible has been transmitted accurately through the centuries. The Bible is, in fact, the Word of God.

ENDNOTES

1 Sir Frederic Kenyon (1951 reprint), Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), second edition, p. 1.
2 Philip Comfort (1990), Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House), p. 4.
3 Portions of this section are drawn from Wayne Jackson (1989), “Was the Old Testament Transmitted Faithfully?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=105&article=1140.
4 Sir Frederic Kenyon (1939), Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode), pp. 69,88.
5 Rene Pach√© (1971), The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), p. 191.
6 Robert Dick Wilson (1929), A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament (New York: Harper Brothers), p. 8.
7 David Ewert (1983), From Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), p. 139; Kenyon, 1951, p. 5; B.A. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort (1964 reprint), The New Testament in the Original Greek (New York: MacMillan), p. 565.
8 Michael Welte (2019), personal e-mail, September 17, Institute for New Testament Textual Research (Munster, Germany), http://www.uni-muenster.de/NTTextforschung/.
9 F.F. Bruce (1960), The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition, p. 20.
10 Ibid., p. 21.
11 Ibid., p. 21.
12 Ibid., p. 22.
13 Donald Guthrie (1990), New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), p. 24.
14 Bruce, p. 23.
15 Bruce, pp. 20-21.
16 Ibid., p. 19.
17 Bruce Metzger (1968), The Text of the New Testament (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), p. 86.
18 Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks (1990), When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books), pp. 159-160.
19 p. 145.
20 Gleason Archer (1982), An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), p. 30, emp. added.
21 Metzger, p. 185.
22 Sir Frederic Kenyon (1940), The Bible and Archaeology (New York: Harper), p. 288.
23 pp. 19-20.
24 Dabney Phillips (1975), Restoration Principles and Personalities (University, AL: Youth In Action), p. 184; L.L. Brigance (1870), “J.W. McGarvey,” in J.W. McGarvey (1962 reprint), A Treatise on the Eldership (Murfreesboro, TN: DeHoff Publications), p. 4.
25 J.W. McGarvey (1956 reprint), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate), p. 17.
26 p. 564, emp. added.
27 Ibid., p. 565, emp. added.
28 J.I. Packer (1958), “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1976 reprint, p. 90, emp. added.
29 As quoted in Packer, pp. 90-91.
30 John Gilchrist (1986), Muhammad and the Religion of Islam, http://answering-islam.org.uk/Gilchrist/Vol1/index.html.
31 Seyyed Hossein Nasr (2003), Islam (New York: HarperCollins), p. 8, emp. added.
32 Translation by Mohammed Pickthall (n.d.), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor), emp. added.
33 Translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali (1934), The Qur’an (Elmhurst, NY: Tahrike Tarsile Quran), ninth edition, emp. added.
34 Ibid., emp. added.
35 Pickthall, emp. added.
36 Cf. Martin Lings (1983), Muhammad (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions International), p. 78.