New Testament, Old Testament, are there two Bibles.
It is common for people to refer to the Bible as divided in two parts, the “Old Testament” and the “New Testament”. Just the term “old” and “new” already give the idea that one is applicable and one isn’t, as if the old testament is somewhat obsolete. This division actually divides the Bible in two language sources. The “Old Testament” was written in Hebrew and some small portions in Aramaic. The “New Testament” on the other hand was written in Greek.
But why do we call these two sections “Old and New Testaments”?
The origin of this practice comes from the rendering of 2 Corinthians 3:14 in the Latin Vulgate and the King James Version.
2Co 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
However the rendering of “Old Testament” is unfortunately incorrect. The Greek work diathekes actually means “covenant as it does in the 32 other places it appears in the Greek text. Many modern Bibles render this word correctly as “covenant” (NE, RS, JB)
The apostle Paul here is not referring to the whole body of Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures. Just as he doesn’t refer to the Inspired Christian writings as a “New Testament” (or covenant). The apostle Paul is rather talking about the old Law covenant, which was recorded by Moses in the first five books of the Bible, a small section of the Hebrew Scriptures. For this reason Paul says in the next verse: “whenever Moses is read”. This shows that it is not really a valid statement to call the entire Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures “The Old Testament” based exclusively on an erroneous rendition of the Greek word for covenant.
This apparently minor mistake, what could appear a mere case of semantics does have real importance when it causes people to believe that the Hebrew Scriptures are not as important or relevant and are therefore called “Old”. Jesus Christ made rather the opposite point when he referred to the collection of sacred writings as the “The Scriptures in Matthew 21:42 and Mark 14:49. The apostle Paul then went on to refer to them as the “Holy Scriptures”, the “Scriptures” and the “holy writings”. Hardly the description of a portion of the Bible that is out of date or no longer as relevant for us today.
The truth is that the entire Bible is important for those who want to learn and understand the Bible. Just as 2 Tim 3:16 “All Scripture (referring to the entire Bible) is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, reproving (…)”.
Hence there is no valid reason or basis to refer to the Bible in terms of “Old” or “New” as both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures are of immense value and importance to us. Let us instead appreciate the Bible in its entirety and do our utmost to read it daily.
Why should I trust the authenticity of the Bible?
What do we mean by the authenticity of the Bible? Put succinctly it means that the claim the Bible itself makes that it was inspired by God, is true. It means you believe that although men wrote the Bible they were simply conveying the ideas of our Creator.
In a world so cynical and so tired of lies and false claims, believing that the Bible is inspired by a superior being that cares about us and wants us to have a close relationship with him is often seen as sweet but naïve, if not reserved for fanatics, the clinically insane or otherwise brain dead.
The authenticity or veracity of the Bible has been tested and questioned from all quarters, from the inside or outside. I argue that none has weakened its position in the least as an inspired work from Jehovah.
This article will visit a few of the attacks that have been made on the Bible and present reasons why these attacks lack substance.
Bible History.
Isaac Newton is quoted as saying: “I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.” The Bibles integrity to truth in all counts is unique when studying the histories of nations, full of inaccuracies, exaggerations and pure lies. The Bible describes accurately people and actions occurred at many different times in history. It is accurate when it describes Nebuchadnezzar and the conquest of Babylon, the Egyptian King Shishak, the Roman emperors Augustus, Tiberius and Claudius.
Races and languages.
The Bible’s description of the common origin of mankind and languages cannot be disputed. As the famous linguist Sir Henry Rawlinson wrote: “If we were to be guided by the mere intersection of linguistic paths, and independently of all reference to the Scriptural record, we should still be led to fix on the plains of Shinar, as the focus from which the various lines had radiated.”
Practicality.
Many state the Bible is a dead book with little if any use. However the doctrines and teachings found in the Bible are most practical for modern man. The Bible lays down principles of what is right and wrong that serve as a model for healthy, productive, moral and business dealings worldwide, regardless of the society or culture.
Scientific accuracy.
The Bible has often been attacked from this flank. However whether describing the progressive order of the creation of the Earth, or how the Earth is hanging upon nothing or it’s spherical nature the Bible still holds true, even after many ancient theories of the world have been debunked(Job 26:7; Isa. 40:22)
Candor.
One of the strongest proofs of the Bible’s authenticity is how it displays candor that is not seen elsewhere. Bible writers talk about their mistakes and sins as easily as they speak about their victories and defeats. This is markedly against most ancient historians and autobiographers of all times that highlight their good points and gloss over their mistakes and failures.