The Bible was written before 70 AD and here is why..

I hear many people question the Bible and the timing of its construction. I have heard some people claim that all of it is a product of the Council of Nicea. This thread shouldn't be terribly long,but hopefully it shows some of you that the Bible was most likely written before 70 AD.

Luke 21
5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,

6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

Matthew 24

1And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.

2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

This prophecy was given by Jesus shortly before his death, and every Jew who studied Scripture would have known it, and if the men who wrote the Bible were making the whole Jesus story up the destruction of this temple would have been a major event that they would have written into the story.

By the summer of 68 A.D., Jews were nearing defeat by the Roman legions and in 69 A.D., Vespasian was made emperor of Rome and gave his son Titus the honor of delivering the final death blows to the rebellious Jews and their capital city. In The Wars of the Jews, Book 6, Josephus notes that, on the eighth day of the of the Roman month Lous (Jewish month Ab), the ramps were finished and Titus ordered the battering-rams brought up and made ready for an assault on the Temple. With the battering-rams in place the Roman siege of Jerusalem, which began at Passover that year, would come to an end. As soon as the walls were breached on the 9th of Ab in 70 A.D., a Roman military force of about 30,000 troops under the command of Titus marched into Jerusalem and began a systematic slaughter of the Jews and the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem—exactly as Jesus foretold 40 years earlier. The Romans brutally slaughtered an estimated 600,000 people in Jerusalem including many of the Passover visitors who had been trapped there for the 143 days during the Roman siege. Many of the people who were not killed by Roman soldiers were shipped off to the gladiatorial games, Roman mines, and otherwise exiled from Judea and scattered throughout the Roman empire and other nations. By the year 73 A.D., all traces of a self-ruling Jewish nation had completely disappeared. Josephus records that the Romans put the city and the Temple to the torch and that these fires were still burning a month later on the eighth day of the Roman month Gorpieus (Jewish month Elul). The magnificent Temple that Herod had built was completely destroyed as the fires raged inside and out. These fires were so hot that the gold fittings, and the gold gilding inside and on it's outside walls melted and ran into the cracks between and in the stones. During the pillaging of the Temple these stones were broken up to get at the gold. Therefore, fulfilling Jesus' prophecy that no stone would be left on another—the destruction was total, just as Jesus foretold. Summary The Temple Solomon built was destroyed by fire on the 9th of Ab in 585 or 586 B.C. (depending on which biblical scholar is doing the research). Just 656 or 657 years later on the 9th of Ab in 70 A.D., the Temple that Herod built was also destroyed. The destruction of both Solomon's Temple and Herod's Temple on the 9th of Ab seems to indicate that, when God's patience comes to an end with his chosen people, he removes his presence and the physical symbolism of his presence from among them to be a witness to future generations that there is a price to pay for disobedience to him.

www.bibleresearch.org...

As you can see the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, but oddly enough this information is never written in any New Testament book. That leads me to the logical conclusion that the books of the Bible were written before 70 AD as that long awaited prophecy is never mentioned.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
That certainly isn't the only argument for your case.
John Robinson's book "Redating the New Testament" is a scholarly investigation on the probable dates of the various books and comes to exactly the same conclusion.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Yeah definitely not the only one. Never read that book, but I'll definitely check it out.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
He does spend a chapter, right at the beginning, looking at the claim that the gospels were "predicting" A.D. 70 after the event. His conclusion is that they were not, because they leave out things which any "after the event" prediction would have included.

P.S. I've just discovered it as an online pdf! (I've had the hardback for years)
Book on pdf

5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,

6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

Matthew 24

1And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.

2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

When it becomes a state? (Multi meanings)

The body is a temple.

There are a lot of arguments out there by religious and secular scholars alike on this topic. I'm not so sure definitive evidence will ever be had. Especially not for the whole bible. Maybe the gospels, and many of the epistles, but at least John's epistles, and Revelations are still thought to have been authored around AD 95. Though I know there are those who argue for pre 70.

Either way, I'm not so sure basing ones argument on the destruction of the temple in AD 70, and "prophecies" concerning it, are a particularly strong argument. Saying that if the prediction was made after, certain things should have been mentioned, and not left out is evidence by omission. Not that it should be ignored either. It is at least a point made, among other points in favor of earlier authorship.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Brilliant, thank you for posting this.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
I hear many people question the Bible and the timing of its construction. I have heard some people claim that all of it is a product of the Council of Nicea.

Critical point here... the bible IS a product of the Council of Nicea ONLY in that they were the ones who selected which of the many gospels were included in the official canon and which were not.. the scriptures themselves were not AUTHORED by the Council .. various scriptures were found in many different locations over a period of a long time.. they just had the task of picking and choosing which scrolls to include, so they created it by selecting those that set the tone they wanted.

There are many gospels that the Council excluded from the bible.. and the author of the bible is actually many different people over a pretty huge span of time..

There are sects of Christianity in other parts of the world that include some of the scriptures the KJV does not..

Just to add something interesting..

Here's a site that lists 10 books that were excluded from the bible ( there are more than 10 in total )

Ten books not included in the new testament

a reply to: miniatus

Oh and one more thing that addresses the title.. because the bible's various scriptures were written by different people over a huge span .. you can't put a date on when it was written since there are MANY dates..

The first books of the bible were written possibly as far back as the 16th century BC and some of the later books were written as late as 100 AD .. the first first council of nicea wasn't until 325 AD

So we're talking a huge span of time before the first and last book ...

Was the bible written before 70 AD? ... Yes
Was the bible written after 70 AD? ... Also yes

These dates include both the old testament and the new testament .. the new testament's first book was written around 70-110 BC

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Most of the NT was probably written before 70AD, but Revelation was witten in 94 AD, probably on 9/16th (feast of trumpets). The first line of Revelation reflects it in the metering. I'll see if I can find it for you.

a reply to: Klassified

You are right and I agree it is very possible those two books came later, but you'll notice that Johns epistles dont focus on history, but rather on Christ himself.

a reply to: miniatus

The so called "lost" books of the Bible were never really lost. They were known about far before the council of Nicea and they weren't considered inspired by the Jews or Christians of that time either.

a reply to: miniatus
This seems to be another point of contention among both xtian and secular alike. Was the bible compiled by the council of Nicea? Some say yes. Some say no. I say...do we really know for sure, either way?

For whatever set of reasons, there is a widespread belief out there (internet, popular books) that the New Testament canon was decided at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD—under the conspiratorial influence of Constantine

The problem with this belief, however, is that it is patently false. The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the formation of the New Testament canon (nor did Constantine).

Link

The subject never came up at that council. And we have all the Council rulings, plus reports by several attendees, to absolutely prove that the Council never issued any such rulings, nor even discussed such ideas as censoring or changing the Bible in any way.

Link
ETA: I thought it might be worth mentioning, the "Council Of Trent" in the mid-1500's, did list those books they considered to be "Canon", and also which version of scripture was to be accepted and used by the Catholic church...

And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle.

Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

Link

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
s+f
I think the bible will be written years from now and sent back.

So if I write something about the twin towers and don't mention them being destroyed, is that proof that what I wrote was before 2001? Of course not.

I see this type of reasoning as confirmation bias, yes it's possible that the gospels were written before 70AD, but it's just as equally possible they weren't. The earliest surviving copies of any gospel is dated to the fourth century, which so happens to be when Nicaea was held.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, you could be right, but a little balance is always a good thing.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Well you writing about the twin towers isn't a prophecy spoken by someone who is believed to have been god in the flesh so its a bit different.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
So if I write something about the twin towers and don't mention them being destroyed, is that proof that what I wrote was before 2001? Of course not.

I see this type of reasoning as confirmation bias, yes it's possible that the gospels were written before 70AD, but it's just as equally possible they weren't. The earliest surviving copies of any gospel is dated to the fourth century, which so happens to be when Nicaea was held.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, you could be right, but a little balance is always a good thing.

I'd also like to add that I recognize it is an argument from silence but in this particular case I think it makes for very good evidence of such. Also if you'll look into it a bit more you'll see plenty of evidence showing that the majority of the new testament books were in circulation before 70 AD

a reply to: miniatus

Over and over I see people claiming the canon of the bible was decided at Nicea...

The Council of Nicea has nothing to do with the canon of the bible...

it was mainly about the arian controversies... and deciding the nature of God... which was a heavy topic of debate for centuries... Constantine was tired of the arguments and he wanted it settled...

We still have some of the letters from the time of Nicea...

Reconciling Arius

The first official canon was established at The council of Laodicea and there were a few afterwards that settled a few minor details

The first version of the Nicean creed came from Nicea... which was changed a few years later to what Christians follow today...

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Well you writing about the twin towers isn't a prophecy spoken by someone who is believed to have been god in the flesh so its a bit different.

It's the same situation, since the Gospels since they were not written by Jesus himself "someone who is believed to have been god in the flesh". There's no date on the writing and no evidence that it was actually written before the event happened.

Also if you'll look into it a bit more you'll see plenty of evidence showing that the majority of the new testament books were in circulation before 70 AD

By new testament "books" I'm assuming you mean the four gospels, acts, and possibly the book of revelation? Where is this evidence? Because everything else is just epistles (letters), and scholars already know that Paul's (authentic) letters were before 70 AD so there's no surprise there.