Why you can trust the Bible
TRUTH over trends • Sermon • Submitted
0 ratings
· 17 viewsA series about the foundations of Christian belief.
Notes
Transcript
Handout
Sermon Tone Analysis
A
D
F
J
S
Emotion
A
C
T
Language
O
C
E
A
E
Social
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
2 Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; correct, rebuke, and encourage with great patience and teaching. 3 For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, will multiply teachers for themselves because they have an itch to hear what they want to hear. 4 They will turn away from hearing the truth and will turn aside to myths.
3 But I fear that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your minds may be seduced from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
16 “The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then, the good news of the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is urgently invited to enter it. 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter in the law to drop out.
It’s Penned by God.
Why does it matter?
Salvation depends on the promise of salvation contained in it.
39 You pore over the Scriptures because you think you have eternal life in them, and yet they testify about me.
Your assurance derives from by planting yourself on it’s truth.
Your growth depends upon living according to it’s principles.
Power for witnessing comes through declaring it.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, and also to the Greek.
You can trust it because Jesus Proclaimed it as the Word of God.
4 He answered, “It is written: Man must not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.”
Prophecies God predicted in the Bible have been fulfilled!
56 But all this has happened so that the writings of the prophets would be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples deserted him and ran away.
Could a baby make himself born in Bethlehem? Micah 5:2
2 Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are small among the clans of Judah; one will come from you to be ruler over Israel for me. His origin is from antiquity, from ancient times.
If it were a mere mortal’s opinion, how and why did Jesus force Pilate to crucify him among thieves?
isa53:9-13
Could a mere human book produce a man who rose from the dead and had 500 witnesses willing to live for Him? 1cor15
The Bible has persisted despite Satan’s war against it!
1 Dear friends, this is now the second letter I have written to you; in both letters, I want to stir up your sincere understanding by way of reminder, 2 so that you recall the words previously spoken by the holy prophets and the command of our Lord and Savior given through your apostles. 3 Above all, be aware of this: Scoffers will come in the last days scoffing and following their own evil desires, 4 saying, “Where is his ‘coming’ that he promised? Ever since our ancestors fell asleep, all things continue as they have been since the beginning of creation.” 5 They deliberately overlook this: By the word of God the heavens came into being long ago and the earth was brought about from water and through water. 6 Through these the world of that time perished when it was flooded.
THE BIBLE HAS SURVIVED THE WAR SATAN HAS RAGED AGAINST IT.
It’s not impressive is a nation exists under Islamic law and the Koran exists there. It’s another thing that where freedom exists or where persecution, the Bible flourishes.
French philosopher Voltaire (1694-1778). The story purports that Voltaire, in his voluminous writings against Christianity and the Bible, predicted in 1776, “One hundred years from my day, there will not be a Bible on earth except one that is looked upon by an antiquarian curiosity-seeker.” As the story alleges, within fifty years after his death, in an ironic twist of Providence, the very house in which he once lived and wrote was used by the Evangelical Society of Geneva as a storehouse for Bibles and Gospel tracts and the printing presses he used to print his irreverent works was used to print Bibles. The story has been used repeatedly through the years by Christians as an example of the enduring intrinsic quality of the Bible and the futility of those who oppose the Inspired Volume.
For years there have been those who dispute this story as to its validity. Humanists, rationalists, agnostics, and atheists have called it an apocryphal story fabricated by Christians to bolster their argument that the Bible is inspired and possesses an intrinsic quality that enables it to withstand attacks by unbelievers. David Ross wrote an article in the Journal of the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists, vol. 77, no. 1, Autumn 2004, entitled “Voltaire’s House and the Bible Society,” in which he went to great lengths to dismiss the story as having any real basis in fact. Ross contends the story has been either fabricated or it began as a misunderstanding and has spread. Ross’ article and others like it are of such a convincing nature that books like Introduction to the Bible by Norman Geisler and William Nix, left it out of later editions.[1]
The question to consider, is there any validity to the story? Did Voltaire ever make such a prediction? Is there proof that the home in which Voltaire once lived, that after his death, was used as a storehouse for Bibles? After much research, this writer has come to the conclusion that the story is true and that those who seek to discredit the story do so because it gives credence to the argument of apologists of God’s providential preservation of His Word.
Voltaire was born in Paris, France in 1694. As a philosopher, historian and free thinker, he became a most influential and prolific writer during what has been called the Age of Enlightenment. From the beginning, Voltaire had trouble with the authorities for criticisms toward the government. He twice served brief prison sentences in the Bastille for being critical of a Regent. His first literary work appeared in 1718. During his life he wrote more than 20,000 letters and some 2,000 pamphlets and books and was a successful playwriter. While a Deist, he vehemently opposed the Christian faith and wrote many rather scoffing works expressing his disdain for the faith and the Bible. His railings against Christianity are filled with poisonous venom, calling the Christian faith the “infamous superstition.”
Several examples of his slanderous words against the Christian faith and the Bible are cited.
In 1764 he wrote, “The Bible. That is what fools have written, what imbeciles commend, what rogues teach and young children are made to learn by heart” (Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary, 1764). “We are living in the twilight of Christianity” (Philosophical Dictionary). In a 1767 letter to Frederick the Great, King of Prussia, he wrote: “Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd, and bloody religion that has ever infected the world…My one regret in dying is that I cannot aid you in this noble enterprise of extirpating the world of this infamous superstition.”[2] Voltaire ended every letter to friends with “Ecrasez l’infame” (crush the infamy — the Christian religion). In his pamphlet, The Sermon on the Fifty (1762) he attacked viciously the Old Testament, biblical miracles, biblical contradictions, the Jewish religion, the Christian God, the virgin birth and Christ’s death on the cross. Of the Four Gospels he wrote, “What folly, what misery, what puerile and odious things they contain [and the Bible is filled] with contradictions, follies, and horrors”[3]. Voltaire regarded most of the doctrines of the Christin faith – the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Trinity, Communion – as folly and irrational.[4] And finally, “To invent all those things [in the Bible], the last degree of rascality. To believe them, the extreme of brutal stupidity!”[5]
Many more such quotes could be cited as to Voltaire’s disdain for Christianity, but those will suffice. Voltaire’s writings were so divisive that in 1754 Louis XV banned him from Paris. Relocating in December 1754 to Geneva, Switzerland, he purchased a beautiful chateau called Les Delices (The Delights). He lived there for five years until 1760 when as the result of his antagonistic writings and plays attacking Christianity, he was virtually driven from Geneva by the Calvinist Reformers. To escape the pressure from the Calvinists, Voltaire moved across the border to Ferney, France, where the controversial Frenchmen lived for eighteen years until the end of his life in 1778 at age 83. He continued to write until his hand was stilled in death.
Now the question arises as to the veracity of what some call an “apocryphal story.” While Voltaire’s disdain for the Bible is evident, did he ever make such a prediction and did any Bible Society ever use either of his residences, from where he wrote his blasphemous words against the Bible and the Christianity, as a warehouse to store Bibles? The answer to that question is an emphatic, “YES!”
The second part of the story will be dealt with first.
In August 1836, only fifty-eight years after Voltaire’s death, Rev. William Acworth of the British and Foreign Bible Society saw with his own eyes Voltaire’s former residence in Geneva, Switzerland, Les Delices, being used as a “repository for Bibles and Religious tracts.” The house at this time was occupied by Colonel Henri Tronchin (1794-1865), who served as the president of the Evangelical Society of Geneva from 1834-39.[6] The Tronchin family had long had associations with Voltaire that could be traced back to the 18th century. One of Henri Tronchin’s ancestor’s, Francis Tronchin, was Voltaire’s doctor. The Tronchin’s were prominent and wealthy residents of Geneva and even helped finance Voltaire in the publishing of some of his works.[7]
While the Tronchin family was prominent and wealthy citizens of Geneva, they were not predominately spiritual. However, though it is not known exactly when, Henri Tronchin came to faith in Christ and embraced Protestantism. Studying literature at the Academy of Geneva, he later served as artillery captain on horseback in the Dutch army. Eventually rising in ranks to lieutenant-colonel of artillery, he married in 1824. A superb organizer and a great leader, he helped found the Evangelical Society of Geneva (c1833). He served as president of the Society from 1834 to 1839. Born 100 years after Voltaire, and occupying the former home of the infamous infidel, Tronchin used the spacious house to store Bibles and Gospel tracts. Rev. William Acworth of Queens College, Cambridge, appointed an agent of the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1829, was an eye witness to the stored Bibles and Gospel tracts.[8]
In The Missionary Register for 1836 of the BFBS, Acworth is recounting his travels in the spread of the Gospel. Having traveled over 2,000 miles in France on the business of the Society, in the summer of 1836 his travels took him to Switzerland in August of that year. Acworth recounts:
I went through Geneva, and was much refreshed by meeting the Committee of the Evangelical Society, with whose proceedings and objects I was so much gratified, that I wrote to this Society to make a liberal grant of 10,000 copies of the French Scriptures to promote the objects of that Society. Our committee have only granted 5,000; but I have no doubt they will, err long, send the other 5,000. Before I left Geneva, my friend observed. “Probably you will like to see the house where Voltaire lived, and where he wrote his plays.” Prompted by the spirit of curiosity, so characteristic of an Englishman, to visit the house of the celebrated infidel, I was about to put on my hat to walk into the county, when he said, “It is not necessary you should put on your hat” and he introduced me over the threshold of one room to another, and said, “tis the room where Voltaire’s play were acted for the amusement to himself and his friend.” And what was my gratification in observing that that room had been converted into sort of Repository for Bibles and Religious Tracts. Oh! my Christ Friends, that the spirit of infidelity had been there, to witness the results of other vaticinations [acts of prophesying] respecting the downfall of Christianity! I know that Voltaire said, that he was living “in the twilight of Christianity” but blessed be God! It was the twilight of the morning, which will bring on the day of universal illumination.[9]
Only fifty-eight years after his death the former home of Voltaire in Geneva, Switzerland, was indeed serving as a storehouse for Bibles and Gospel tracts. While the Evangelical Society of Geneva did not actually purchase the house, Henri Tronchin, president of the Society, resided in the house, and used some of the rooms to store Bibles which Voltaire so vehemently opposed and prophesied Christianity’s downfall! Yes, an ironic twist of divine Providence.
Let it also be noted, only sixteen years after Voltaire’s death, in 1794, the presence of the Bible began making in-roads in the town where he spent the last eighteen years of his life, Ferney, France. On the very printing presses which Voltaire employed to print his irreverent works was used to print editions of the Bible and which were printed on paper that “been especially made for a superior edition of Voltaire’s works. The Voltaire project failed, and the paper was bought and devoted to a better purpose [of printing Bibles]!”[10]
In the book Letters from an Absent Brother, by Daniel Wilson, Bishop of Calcutta, which chronicles his travels through parts of Netherlands, Switzerland, Northern Italy, and France, he writes to his sister from Geneva on Wednesday evening, seven o’clock, October 1, 1823, concerning the distribution of Bibles in the town where Voltaire once lived: When I arrived at Paris, one of the first things I heard was that a Bible society had been established at Ferney, chiefly by the aid of Baron de Stael. What a noble triumph for Christianity over this daring infidel. One of the first effect of the revival of true religion or even of sound learning in France, I should think would be to lower the credit of this profligate, crafty, superficial, ignorant, incorrect writer. What plea can wit or cleverness, or the force of satire or the talent of ridicule or a fascinating style, or the power of brilliant description, form, in a Christian country, for a man who employed them all, with a bitterness or ferocity, of mind amounting to almost madness, against the Christian religion and the person of our Saviour.[11]
That a Bible society had been established in Ferney, France to help financially in the printing of Bible’s in the town where Voltaire once resided, is confirmed in the 1824 Report of the Protestant Bible Society at Paris containing the following sentence: A newly established branch at Ferney formerly the residence of Voltaire, has sent its first remittance, a sum of 167 francs.[12]
Further proof that the printing presses Voltaire once used to print his blasphemous works is contained in a transcript from the Quarterly Papers of the American and Foreign Bible Society of 1837: A Bible Society was some years since established at Ferney, once the residence of Voltaire—the prince of infidels. This noble enterprise for the propagation of the Christian religion is said to have commenced by Baron de Stael, and a few zealous Christians in that place. In the history of Bible Societies, this is truly a memorial event. That the antidote should issue from the very spot where the poison of infidelity for so many years disseminated; and the advocates of Christianity should in that very place print and circulate the sacred volume, as a sufficient shield against misrepresentations sophistry which he had there assailed divine revelation, are the events which the brilliant Frenchman would have pronounced impossible.[13]
In 1845 Bibles were still being printed on printing presses Voltaire once employed in Ferney, France. The 1846 anniversary address of The American and Foreign Bible Society, Rev. Charles G. Sommers gave a stirring report on how the Bible was making penetration into various places around the world. When speaking about the Scriptures advancements in countries around the world (including France) in the previous year of 1845, Rev. Sommers stated,
“Much has indeed been accomplished, but much more remains to be done for the millions who are still without God, without Christ, and without hope in the world. It is true, indeed, and we thank God, that in nine years this Society has printed one million of books in forty-nine different languages, but hundreds of millions must be distributed among the famishing myriads of our race. By what other means can we hope to arrest the progress of infidelity and Romanism; now marching in triumph over the fields of our fair inheritance? When Pythagoras and Confucius were filling Europe and Asia with heresies, God raised up Ezra, the prophet, to compile and publish the books of the Old Testament, as an antidote to their delusions. And when Voltaire, Diderot, D’Alembert and Rousseau were laboring to crush the bleeding cause of Christ, God raised up against them the standard of the British and Foreign Bible Society; and it is a cause for grateful exultation that the same printing press which was employed to scatter the blasphemous tracts of the prince of French philosophers, has since been used at Ferney (France), to print the Word of God. The black confederacy raised their bulwarks to impede the march of truth, but they would have been equally successful, had they forged chains to bind the lightning, that cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west, as the precursor of the coming of the Son of man. Voltaire boasted that he had seen the twilight of Christianity, and that the pall of an endless night would soon cover it forever. Yes, sir, he did see the twilight, but he was mistaken as to the hour of the day—it was the twilight of morning, pouring its effulgence over the brim of the horizon of the nineteenth century, which he mistook for the rays of a setting sun.”[14]
Having established that Bibles were actually stored in Voltaire’s former Geneva residence and were being printed on printing presses he once employed in Ferney, France, did he ever make such a prediction that one hundred years after his death the Bible would no longer be read? A man who wrote 20,000 letters in his lifetime, it would be impossible to know all the statements he wrote or spoke. However, it was generally acknowledged and understood by those near the time Voltaire lived that he had made such a prediction either verbally or in writing which may no longer exist. Rev. Acworth in 1836, only fifty-eight years after Voltaire’s death, referred to the infidel’s “vaticinations [act of prophesying] respecting the downfall of Christianity! Such a remark indicates it was common knowledge that such a bold prediction had been made by Voltaire. In 1849, only seventy-one years after Voltaire’s death, William Snodgrass, an officer of the American Bible Society, stated in the giving of ABS’s annual report that “the committee had been able to redeem their pledge by sending $10,000 to France, the country of Voltaire, who predicted that in the nineteenth century the Bible would be known only as relic of antiquity.”[15] Again, such a remark indicates it was commonly acknowledged that Voltaire had made such a prediction.
Found in an interpretative book on many of the works of Voltaire published in 1823, only forty-five years after his death, the author, a contemporary of the Frenchman, details the fact that he brutishly sought to inspire contempt for the Christian faith and saw himself more influential than Martin Luther and John Calvin! Voltaire wanted a “religion to be without code, without laws, without dogma, without authority” and “laughed all these Christians who believed their religion was truly divine.” The author states that Voltaire in his fight against Christianity would stop “at nothing to annihilate” the Christian faith.[16] It is obvious those in Voltaire’s day believed his efforts were for the purpose of dismantling Christianity.
While this writer could not find the exact quote that usually accompanies the story, similar quotes could be found. In an 1855 biography of Voltaire, the author quotes him as stating in a letter to a friend, “It is impossible that Christianism survives.”[17] In an effort to assist in bringing about what he perceived would hurry the demise of “Christianism,” in 1776, at age 82, Voltaire brought to a culmination his disdain for the Bible when he published La Bible Enfin Expliquée (The Bible Fully Explained).[18] The two-volume work was Voltaire’s commentary on the whole Bible. His purpose in writing was to “make the whole building [of Christianity] crumble.”[19] Writing with feigned credulity in a satirical and scoffing manner, he wrote viciously, mockingly critical and skeptically of practically every book and verse in the Bible. His sought to expose, as he saw it, the foolishness and irrationality of belief in the Bible. Of his massive tome, in which he derided the Bible on every page, he stated, “The subject is now exhausted: the cause is decided for those who are willing to avail themselves of their reason and their lights, and people will no more read this [Bible].”[20]
From such an arrogant declaration it is clear Voltaire delusionally believed as a result of his La Bible Enfin Expliquée, he had struck a death blow to the Bible’s believability and the sun was setting on the Book’s influence and in time the Volume would become irrelevant. However, instead of the Bible becoming irrelevant and no longer believed, the Inspired Volume begins to increase in circulation… his former house, only fifty-eight years after his death, being used as a storehouse to house Bibles and Gospel tracts and printing presses he once employed to print his anti-Christian sentiments was being used to print Bibles!
Like all stories that are repeated over the years, the exact details and wording may vary, but it seems clear the key components of the story are very much true. The story of Voltaire serves as an example and a reminder that the foolish predictions and efforts of man to extinguish the Bible will come to naught. No skeptic’s scoffing hammer has ever made a dent in the Eternal Anvil of God’s Word. To those who attempt to do so, Jesus emphatically declares, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35).
Amen!
It’s purpose is to train
the mind to think from God’s perspective.
It speaks o
to keep us on the narrow path.
to focus sharpen our conscious.
It Prepares us for eternity.
Those who Practice it find blessing.
27 As he was saying these things, a woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you and the one who nursed you!” 28 He said, “Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.”
The Pitcairn Bible
The story of the Mutiny on the Bounty has been told many times and has been made glamourised by the 1962 film starring Trevor Howard and Marlon Brando in the lead roles. But the one part of the story that is not so well known is the transformation on Pitcairn Island of the survivors of the Mutiny.
You probably know the story of the Mutiny on the Bounty quite well. Fletcher Christian, the second in command led a mutiny of most of the crew of the Bounty against the Captain, Lieutenant Bligh on 28th April 1789. The Captain and those of the crew that refused to join mutiny were sent adrift.
After much hardship and brilliant seamanship on the part of Bligh, they reached the island of Timor. Fletcher Christian took the Bounty and the rest of the crew to Tahiti.But in September 1789, he and eight other Englishmen from the Bounty, six Tahitian men, eleven Tahitian women and one child, sailed from Tahiti on the Bounty
Early in the following year 1790, found and landed on an uninhabited island, Pitcairn Island. They burnt the ship in order to escape detection. At first, the island seemed a paradise. But soon the Englishmen started to mistreat the Tahitians and stole one of their wives, causing a rebellion. Within four years, all the Tahitian men and all but four of the Englishmen had been murdered.
The only survivors were Alexander Smith, Edward Young, Matthew Quintall, William McCoy. McCoy soon learnt how to distill liquor from the roots of the “ti plant”, and soon the men were drunk almost all the time. Fearing for their lives, the women and children fled to another part of the island and build a fort for protection. One day McCoy threw himself over the cliffs in a drunken stupor.
Matthew Quintal became so dangerous when he was drunk that he threatened the lives of everyone else. So Smith and Young had to kill him for the safety of the others on the island. Smith finally came to his senses and destroyed the still and all the liquor on the island. He went “cold turkey” for several months.
Young, who was dying of TB, was taken in by the women to nurse him. While Smith was living alone, he discovered among the stores taken off the Bounty - before it was destroyed - a copy of the Bible and a Book of Common Prayer. However these weren’t much use to him as he was illiterate. Eventually, Young recovered and he and the women returned to the village where Smith was living. Young was literate and so he taught Smith to read using the Bible.
In 1801, Young died. Alexander Smith continued to read to Bible in its entirety, and grew to understand it over a period of several years. Seeing the importance of teaching the Bible to others, he began teaching the children how to read, and eventually some of the mothers learned to read as well. Using the Bible, he taught everyone about the Christian faith and instituted a daily prayer time, grace before meals, and Sunday worship. One of his prayers was as follows:
“Suffer me not O Lord to waste this day in sin or folly. But let me Worship thee with much Delight. Teach me to know more of thee and to serve thee better than ever I have done before, that I may be fitter to dwell in heaven, where thy worship and service are everlasting. Amen.”
In 1808, Pitcairn’s Island was discovered by captain Mayhew Folger of an American ship the USS Topas. The members of the crew were amazed to find that the island was inhabited by thirty five English-speaking people of Polynesian descent who were practicing the Christian faith.
It wasn’t long before the outside world was fascinated with the news that Fletcher Christian’s community had been found. The English authorities instructed every captain sailing to the south Pacific to search for any mutineers so that they could be arrested and deported to England to be punished for their crimes. Later, when two British ships did visit Pitcairn’s Island, they found such an orderly colony that they decided to disobey orders and not report their find of the Bounty survivors to London - although they did annex the Island as a British colony.
King George later sent Captain Waldgrave to visit Pitcairn’s. And Waldgrave wrote this:
“It was with great gratification that we observed the Christian simplicity of the natives. They appeared to have no guile. Their cottages were open to all and all were welcome to their food.”
A Church and a school were later built on the island. Smith died in 1829 at the age of seventy, but by 1840, Pitcairn’s Island was still a thriving Christian colony.
A visitor at that time wrote as follows:
“I then walked round and questioned several of the people on the texts, and some of the chief Scripture facts and doctrines, and most of them gave ready and suitable answers. . .The islanders have prayers twice on the Sabbath; after which Mr. Nobbs reads sermons from Burder, Watts, Blair, or Whitefield. There is also a Sabbath-school, a Bible-class is held on the Wednesday, and a day school every morning and afternoon. If God can use his book to convert the inhabitants of Pitcairn Island through an illiterate rehabilitated alcoholic, that book can transform our lives too."
The Bible answers the Problems everyone faces: Sin, Suffering, and Death!
Pitcairn Island.
Choose a verse to memorize to grow your faith.
Consider an area above such as prophecy fulfilment to study during this month.
See Ratio Christi
See Ratio Christi
Elements of a World View
It has internal coherence.
It doesn’t break the laws of logic
It Corresponds to reality.
Where it can be examined you find truth. Example, the nation of Israel has archeological connection.
It connects to life, it works.
Can We Trust the Bible?
Can We Trust the Bible?
📷
The Christian Bible is one of the most widely published books in the world. It has been translated into a multitude of different languages and has been distributed to almost every corner of the world. The Bible is a source of Truth for those who trust in the Christian faith, but how can we be certain that what the Bible says is true?
When faced with this question it is important to remember that while Christians view the Bible as the inspired word of God, non-believers do not share this belief. Arguing this point, from the start, will not result in a convincing case. Instead, it is best to begin by seeking a point of agreement upon the fact that the Bible is a historical document. Since most Christians are more familiar with the New Testament, we will start our discussion of the historicity (historically accurate qualities) of the Bible there.
Begin by asking the question, “Do you think that the New Testament is a reliable collection of historical documents?” Assuming that the person you are having a conversation with says no, your next question should be, “Well, what do you think qualifies a historical document as reliable, or trustworthy?” Establishing criterion is key. You will find that most people may not even know what qualities a reliable piece of history should have. It is important to respectfully listen to their answer, regardless of the criteria they deem. Your response will be from a place of authority.
Historians agree that the reliability of a historical document is measured using three key attributes: multiple, independent sources, eyewitness testimony, and embarrassing/unfriendly testimonies (Habermas and Licona, 2004, 36). Using these criteria, we will assess the reliability of the New Testament writings, and compare them to another ancient, historical document. The goal is to establish the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as a historical fact.
Multiple, independent sources. The New Testament is made up of 27 separate books, written by approximately 10 different authors. Each of these books and authors are different, but the themes of their writings are all cooperative. Each source testifies to the sovereignty of Jesus of Nazareth, and the reality of his resurrection from the dead. Some may argue that there are some contradictions between some of the Gospel writers on their accounts of what Jesus did. I address this specific issue more thoroughly in another blog. The important fact to remember when you hear this accusation is that we would expect different people, all writing about the same thing, to have different testimonies. That is inherent to having multiple, independent sources. They are writing from their own unique perspective. Where they differ does not tell as much as where they agree, which is that Jesus was crucified, died, and was found to be resurrected from the dead.
Eyewitness testimony. Historians and detectives alike will agree that eyewitness testimony regarding an event is more valuable than that of someone who merely heard about it. This criterion is, perhaps, the most important regarding reliability of historical testimony, because it speaks to the timeliness of the information and the reliability of the source. An eyewitness had to be there to see the events unfold, and their testimony is first-hand knowledge of the events. Focusing specifically on the Gospels, these books were written by Jesus’ disciples (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), who were eyewitnesses to the events that they are recording. This criterion, also, speaks to the timeliness of the Gospel books being written. Obviously, testimony that is given closer to the actual event is more reliable than later, due to the human capacity for remembering. Even the most skeptical critics of the Bible now date the Gospels as being written within the first century (Habermas and Licona, 2004, 53). Dating Christ’s death at 30 A.D., this would mean that the latest the Gospels were written only a few decades after the actual events. When we compare this to other historical documents, it becomes clear that the New Testament is perhaps one of the most reliable, well preserved historical documents of all time.
Embarrassing/unfriendly testimony. This piece of criteria speaks to the authenticity of the authors of ancient history. Bias is something that historians have to identify and be wary of when examining historical documents. If Caesar Augustus authored a book entitled, Caesar Augustus: The Greatest Emperor Ever, historians would obviously see that there is a clear bias that will affect the reliability of the information in that book. If, however, in this book Caesar had written about some of his own flaws and included facts that do not make him look like such a great emperor, historians would take that as evidence of the author’s truthfulness. Additional testimony from some of Caesar’s enemies, that confirmed some of the events in his book would, also, give historians reason to believe that what was written was true.
Most skeptics will quickly point the finger of bias at the New Testament, because it was written by Jesus’ followers, and they are writing about him being the Messiah and doing amazing things. However, when we consider the amount of embarrassing testimony the disciples give about themselves when writing the Gospels, it becomes clear that they were dedicated to telling the truth. Specific examples of the embarrassing testimony found in the Gospels, can be found in another blog on this site entitled, “Embarrassing Testimony from the Gospels.” There are, also, examples of enemies to the early church and Jesus as giving testimony regarding the historicity of Jesus Christ and the phenomenon of the powerful faith of the early church. The Jewish historian Josephus writes about the trial of James, the brother of Jesus who claimed to be the Christ, for his transgression of the Law by preaching the Gospel (Licona, 2010, 235). Similarly, Tacitus, one of the greatest Roman historians, wrote about persecution of the Christians, who were name after Christ, and were growing in numbers throughout all of Judea (Licona, 2010, 242).
📷
Comparison with Alexander the Great. Most people will not argue that Alexander the Great was a real person from history, and that what historians wrote about him are true. The most historically reliable documents concerning Alexander the Great, however, meet less of the critical historical criteria than the New Testament. Flavius Arrianus, better known as Arrian, is a famous ancient historian and provided some of the most reliable writings concerning the life of Alexander the Great (Sorek, 2012, 141). Arrian used two eyewitnesses for his work The History of the Campaigns of Alexander. Arrian provides almost no embarrassing or unfriendly testimony regarding Alexander, either. Finally, Alexander the Great’s became king of Macedonia in 359 B.C., while Arrian did not write his work until approximately 400 years after the fact (Sorek, 2012, 139).
This is how we can answer the question, why do you think the Bible is reliable? It was written in a timely manner, by eyewitnesses, who checked their own bias by including facts that were considered embarrassing to the author. When compared to other ancient historical writings, the Bible stacks up as one of the most accurate and authentic.
References
Habermas, Gary R. and Michael R. Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004.
Licona, Michael R. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. 2010.
Sorek, Susan. Ancient Historians: A Student Handbook. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2012.
10 REASONS YOU CAN TRUST THE BIBLE
Facts, manuscripts and historical accuracy are just some of the evidence for God’s Word
URL copied!
JOHN DICKSON | MARCH 1ST, 2017 10:02 AM | 📷 ADD A COMMENT
There is so much scepticism about the Bible today and about Jesus, in particular, it’s difficult not to feel alarmed. The drip-drip nature of the challenges means that, just like constant, low-level criticism in relationships, many of us over time feel deflated, insecure and frightened to open our mouth. But the anxiety is psychological more than intellectual.
ADVERTISEMENT
Our sacred texts, and especially those surrounding Jesus, pass the test of history with flying colours.
Frankly, I don’t think we need to know any of what follows in order to be a fulfilled and confident Christian. The word of God stands all on its own. But since so many of today’s criticisms of Christianity are historical in nature, it seems reasonable to me to offer these
ten reasons not to panic about Bible scepticism.
1. We should expect historical questions because Christianity is historical
The Bible’s New Testament is different from the Scriptures of other world religions.
The Koran claims to be a direct revelation from God, entirely devoid of historical markers and claims. The Hindu Vedas and Upanishads, and the Buddhist Tripitaka are the same. One can believe these writings but there is no way to verify their contents.
We should take questions that zero in on history as a kind of compliment
That makes being a Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist quite “safe” because their sacred books are immune to historical criticism. But it also means onlookers have no way to “test” the core content of these faiths.
The Bible is different. The heart of Christian faith is a series of events recorded in a collection of histories and letters, gathered together in the Bible. As soon as you say, “This man Jesus said … and did …” you are making claims about history.
It is only to be expected, then, that others would ask, “How do you know that happened?”
We should take questions that zero in on history as a kind of compliment and a sign that our questioners understand the nature of our claims.
2. The gospels are now widely recognised by secular experts as historical biographies
There was a time when people read the gospel accounts as “myth.” The great German scholar David Friedrich Strauss (1808-1874) argued that the narratives of Jesus were never intended to be read as history but were only meant as poetical and metaphorical accounts of the spiritual and moral life. Jesus didn’t actually give sight to the blind, for example; such stories were really only about the religious “insight” we gain when we listen to the wisdom of Christ.
This view may persist in the popular mind, but it has disappeared from scholarship. Between the 1970s and ’90s, a consensus emerged among experts that the gospels have to be read as “biographies” of a real individual. They share many similarities – in length, structure, design and content – with the 20-30 other biographies from the period. So they have to be read as real-world accounts of the sayings and deeds of a first-century individual.
3. The New Testament contains a “collection” of independent evidence about Jesus
The New Testament seems like one book today. It has its own ISBN, after all! But, originally, many of these texts were written independently of each other.
The Gospel of Mark was written without a knowledge of what was in the letters of Paul. Paul himself wrote without any knowledge of the Gospel of Mark. James wrote his letter without possessing copies of Mark or Paul’s epistles. Here, then, are three separate sources, only later (in the second century) brought into a single volume called the New Testament.
Do we have more than one source testifying to the event?
There are even sources within individual gospels, according to most secular experts today. Luke in his opening line tells us, “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us.” Today, scholars reckon they can detect at least three separate sources in his gospel. Overall, then, there are between five and seven sources in the New Testament which haven’t been simply copied from each other. The point of the observation – from the historical point of view – is that this fulfils one of the most important “tests” that contemporary historians apply when trying to work out what happened in the past: Do we have more than one source testifying to the event? In the case of Jesus, we have between five and seven different sources saying roughly the same thing about him. That puts the broad outline of Jesus’ life beyond reasonable doubt for most specialists working today.
📷“Papyrus 52” is a fragment of John’s Gospel, kept at John Rylands Library in Manchester, England.CPX/Allan Dowthwaite
4. The New Testament sources are relatively early
In ancient history, scholars are used to assessing sources written many decades, or even centuries, after the events under investigation. That’s the norm.
Rarely, if ever, do we find sources contemporaneous with events. So, for example, our first detailed biographical account of Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) was written by Polybius about 120 years after Alexander’s death. Likewise, the most important account of Emperor Tiberius, who ruled when Jesus lived, was penned by Tacitus some 80 years after his death.
The New Testament documents, on the other hand, are significantly earlier. The gospel source known as Q and the earliest letters of Paul come from around the year 50, just 20 years after Jesus’ death. Several more documents (like Mark and James) come from the ’60s, just 30 or so years after Jesus. And the latest New Testament document in the opinion of secular scholars, the Gospel of John, was probably written around the year 90, just 60 years after the event. (Personally, I think John is much earlier, but I’m giving the dates used by most secular specialists.) That means that the latest New Testament record we have for Jesus is still earlier than the best record we have for Emperor Tiberius who lived at the same time.
5. Before the New Testament was written, the words and deeds of Jesus were preserved by oral tradition
In the ancient world only about 10-15 per cent of the population could read. So people’s first instinct when important things happened wasn’t to write them down. That only preserved the news for a small, elite subset of the population. If you wanted the masses to know something – whether an important military event, a summary of a philosophical system or a particular teacher’s sayings – you relied on what scholars call “oral tradition.”
In our instant, media-saturated world, we expect things to be on Twitter or our news feeds within minutes of them happening. But that’s not how the first century worked. We know beyond doubting that ancient Greeks, Romans and Jews were well practised in the art of memorisation and rehearsal of important material. (We have lost this art, to our great detriment.)
In reality, it is surprising that we have so much Christian material written down so soon.
For example, initiates in the philosophy of Epicurus, one of the most popular schools in the period, had to learn by heart about 2000 words of complex philosophical sayings of the founder of the movement. This wasn’t unusual. Jewish rabbis made similar demands of their disciples, and all of the evidence points to Jesus insisting upon the same with his disciples. These disciples then appointed others – known as “teachers” – to ensure that the same material was passed on and preserved in the growing churches. In reality, it is surprising that we have so much Christian material written down so soon.
6. Non-Christian writings confirm the broad outline of Jesus’ life
Scraps of information about Jesus can be found in writers with no Christian faith at all. Tacitus left us a passing criticism of the Christians that mentions Jesus’ title (Christ), time and place and the circumstances of his death. The Jewish writer Josephus mentions Jesus on two occasions. If you read the “scepti-net” you will find many ardent atheists today dismiss Josephus’ evidence as a wholesale Christian forgery. They are confused. The consensus today is that one of Josephus’ two paragraphs about Jesus has indeed been “improved” by a Christian copyist in an effort to turn “a wise man” into “more than a man.” But once these additions are removed, the paragraph makes perfect sense as a neutral, passing remark about Jesus from a non-Christian Jew.
And several of Josephus’ comments make no sense if all of them were a Christian invention: for example, he sounds surprised that “the tribe of Christians has still to this day not disappeared,” which suggests he expected Christians to dwindle any day now. In any case, Josephus’ other mention of Jesus falls under no suspicion. He certainly knew of “the one called Christ.” “The fact that Jesus existed, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate … seems to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition,” writes Christopher Tuckett, an Oxford University professor and no friend to Christian apologetics. “If nothing else, the non-Christian evidence can provide us with certainty on that score.”
📷John Dickson consults a medieval manuscript of Josephus in Cambridge, England.CPX/Allan Dowthwaite
7. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Despite the range and early date of our evidence for Jesus, there is still a great deal that cannot be corroborated by other sources. Some might see this as reason for concern. Surely events as significant as those in the Bible should be reported by everyone in the ancient world, right? Not really.
This is one of those occasions where the study of history is very different from the study of yesterday’s news. 99 per cent of the written material of the first century is simply gone. We know of hundreds of writers – mentioned by the authors we do have – whose writings are completely lost from history. It is just a painful reality of ancient historical research that we are trying to piece together the past with less than 1 per cent of the relevant material. Loads of things can be affirmed from 1 per cent of evidence, but it’s not advisable to deny things when 99 per cent of the evidence is missing.
For example, there is no evidence outside of Luke 2 for a census of the Roman world around the time of the birth of Jesus. But with 99 per cent of the documentation missing, it would be unwise to say with confidence that Luke made a mistake. His evidence counts as evidence, even if it is not able to be corroborated.
“It is an elementary error to suppose that the unmentioned did not exist.” – Graham Stanton
I remember debating someone from the Rationalist Society years ago. He demanded to know why we don’t have any mention of Jesus in any of the correspondence between governor Pontius Pilate and Emperor Tiberius. Governors were indeed required to issue constant reports to their superiors, so the absence of evidence is significant, he thought. But what he didn’t know (how, I have no idea) is that we don’t have a single piece of correspondence from Pontius Pilate to anyone. In fact, we don’t have a single piece of correspondence from Emperor Tiberius to anyone. Thousands of documents must have flowed to and from Rome and Jerusalem, but none of them survives. The absence of evidence from Pilate about Jesus is not evidence of the absence of Jesus from history. Scholars are usually far more cautious about such things. As Cambridge University’s famous Graham Stanton once put it, “every student of ancient history is aware, it is an elementary error to suppose that the unmentioned did not exist.”
8. The New Testament is probably the best preserved text of all ancient history
A rumour has spread that the text of the New Testament has not been reliably passed down through the centuries. It was copied from one document to another document, translated from one dead language to another dead language, and eventually it ended up in our pew Bibles. Who knows if what we read today is what the original writers first wrote!? Well, in fact we do know. The more manuscript copies of an ancient text we have, the better able we are to determine what was in the original document. Mistakes and changes certainly happen – in all ancient copies of documents – but if you only have, say, two or three copies of a document and they vary from one another here and there, it is quite difficult to work out which wording is original and which is a variation.
So how does the New Testament fare in the copying stakes? Better than any other ancient writing! Let me offer the fairest comparison imaginable. The most celebrated epic poem of Roman history is the Aeneid, by Virgil (it runs about the same length as the four gospels combined). It was so popular, it was copied over and over. And it is now considered the best preserved Latin text we have from ancient times. It has come down to us in the following manuscript copies:
Three complete or near-complete copiesSeven partial manuscripts (a partial manuscript could include 50 or more pages of writing)20 papyrus fragments (which might just be a page or two)Compare this with the New Testament manuscript copies:
Four complete or near-complete copies (very comparable to the Aeneid)340 partial manuscripts (far more than the Aeneid. And keep in mind that “partial” can include manuscripts which contain entire gospels or several of Paul’s letters)1000s of papyrus fragments (scraps of paper with short or long passages from the New Testament)Because of the overwhelming number of copies of the New Testament, we are far more easily able to spot the variations and arrive at a high degree of confidence about the original text.
9. Archaeology confirms important facts about the world of Jesus
Scores of digs are going on around Israel. Some are uncovering vital information about the world of Jesus. There are numerous chance findings that “prove” bits and pieces of the gospels – the Pool of Siloam in 2004; a house from Jesus’ home town of Nazareth in 2009; an early first-century synagogue on the shore of Lake Galilee in 2009 – but they are not the most significant results of archaeology.
Two crucial features of the gospels have been verified by recent findings in Galilee and Judea. First, the thoroughly Jewish character of Lower Galilee (where Jesus was from) is confirmed by the discovery of Jewish pots, ritual baths and the absence of pig bones (a forbidden food for Jews) in the rubbish dumps of these towns. Some scholars used to claim that the Jewish nature of the story of Jesus didn’t fit with the more Gentile physical environment of Galilee. They were wrong.
And, yet, secondly, the gospels were written in Greek. How could an authentically Jewish story end up in the “pagan” language (instead of Aramaic)? And does this mean there is a large cultural gap between the Jewish Jesus of Galilee and the Greek language of the later gospels? Archaeology has helped here, too. It is now known that a significant proportion of Jerusalem’s population spoke Greek as a first language. Scraps of documents and inscriptions in Greek make clear that the international “pagan” language was very widely used by Jews inside and outside the holy land.
The discovery of a first-century Greek-speaking synagogue right next to the Jerusalem temple suggests that some of Jesus’ first followers in Jerusalem would have had good Greek (as well as Aramaic). The stories and teachings of Jesus would have been translated and communicated in Greek from the very beginning.
10. Jesus is more trustworthy than we are trusting
In the opening paragraph of his Gospel, Luke reveals the historical nature of his subject. He mentions his earlier sources, insists that the information comes from eyewitnesses, and claims to have “investigated everything from the beginning.” He rounds off his introductory remarks with a highly significant statement about his goal: “so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”
The word “certainty” is the Greek term asphalaia, from which we get the English “asphalt,” that mixture of bituminous pitch with sand or gravel that we make roads with. The term means firmness, safety, stability. While it is possible Luke just means he wants readers to arrive at cognitive “certainty” about Jesus, the precise wording suggests something different.
I no longer stress about doubts.
He wants readers to perceive how firm Jesus is. In other words, this isn’t about us having no intellectual doubts. It’s about us developing a sense (however strong that sense might be) of the dependability of Christ himself.
The difference may seem subtle, but it is significant. Having spent decades reading and researching ancient history and the historical Jesus, I have come to believe Jesus is more reliable than my subjective feelings of confidence.
Our personal confidence in the Bible can ebb and flow. It is affected by whatever documentary we last saw on the subject, or by what our friends think of Christianity, or just by how much sleep we had last night!
But I no longer stress about doubts. When a question arises in my mind about the history behind Scripture, I assess whether it is a doubt of substance or just subjective feeling of lack of confidence. If it’s the former, I do a little more digging; and I have found through the years that there are always answers to the intellectual questions. If it is the latter, I just relax and remind myself that the gospel of Jesus is far more substantial and solid than anything the discipline of history can uncover and far more trustworthy than I am trusting.
John Dickson is Founding Director of the Centre for Public Christianity and Honorary Fellow of the Department of Ancient History at Macquarie University.
DISCOVER MORE
Lesson 18: Why You Can Trust the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16 and other texts)
Lesson 18: Why You Can Trust the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16 and other texts)
Related Media
📷 00:00
00:00
Why is the complete accuracy of the Bible important? What difference would it make if there were errors?How would you answer a non-Christian who said, “I don’t believe in the Bible; besides, it’s full of contradictions”?Is it intellectually dishonest to believe in inerrancy when there are still unsolved problems in the Bible? Why/why not?Since it is only the original manuscripts of the Bible that are inerrant, and we do not possess any originals, is it still important to affirm inerrancy? Why/why not?
You don’t have to pick up books like Dan Brown’s bestseller, The Da Vinci Code, to find attacks against the reliability of the Bible. The late Dr. James Boice (“Does Inerrancy Matter?” [ICBI, 1979], p. 9) cited a survey of clergy in five major U.S. denominations that asked the broad question, “Do you believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God?” This was weaker than asking, “Do you believe that the Bible is without error?” It left open the definition of “inspired.” Yet in spite of the level at which the question was asked, 82 percent of the Methodists, 89 percent of the Episcopalians, 81 percent of the United Presbyterians, 57 percent of the Lutherans, and 57 percent of the Baptists, answered “no.”
In our day, to say that you believe that the Bible is inspired by God and without error in all that it affirms puts you in league with the folks in the Flat Earth Society. Especially in a university town, we expose ourselves to ridicule to go on record as saying that we believe that the Bible is completely true and without error.
Even many who claim to be evangelicals will not affirm the Bible to be without error. Many professors in evangelical colleges do not accept the biblical account of creation as true. Some believe that there are historical errors in the Bible and contradictions between parallel accounts. A few have gone so far as to say that the Bible errs on doctrinal and moral issues, such as Paul’s teaching on the role of women or his condemnation of homosexuality. They advocate re-interpreting these issues in light of modern knowledge.
These critics maintain that inerrancy is not all that important. The real issue is a person’s relationship to Jesus Christ. They argue that to hold to inerrancy is not scholastic and it imposes on the authors of Scripture standards of accuracy that they themselves did not hold. Thus evangelicals should not divide over this issue.
But is the inerrancy of the Bible a trivial issue? I think not. If the Bible errs on some historical facts, then how do we know that it is accurate on other historical events, such as Christ’s virgin birth, bodily resurrection and ascension? If we can’t be sure of the historical accuracy of the Bible, how can we know anything about Jesus? The Jesus of the Bible could then be a composite fictional character invented by the early church!
The main problem is that if we say that there are errors in the Bible, then we set ourselves up as judges over the Bible. Then we don’t have to submit to its authority. We’re free to pick and choose what we wish to obey. Over 100 years ago, the British preacher, Charles Spurgeon saw this clearly. He pointed out that faith that accepts one word of God and rejects another is not faith in God at all, but rather, faith in one’s own judgment and preferences. Further, he argued that invariably when a man argues against the Word of God, some form of sin lies at the root of it (Iain Murray, Spurgeon & Hyper-Calvinism [Banner of Truth, pp. 6-8).
But must we then take a blind leap of faith with regard to biblical inerrancy? Must we refuse to recognize or wrestle with problems in the Bible? Or are there good reasons to trust the Bible? I believe that there are. I want to explore the proposition that…
You can trust the Bible because it is God’s Word and it is without error in all its teaching.
1. The Bible is God’s Word.
“All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16). As we saw last week, the word means breathed out by God, which is to say…
A. GOD IS THE ORIGINATOR OF THE BIBLE.
The Bible did not come from the best religious ideas of the apostles or prophets. It originated when God spoke to them and they wrote down the words of Scripture. This is not to say that God dictated the words of the Bible. Obviously He used the personalities and styles of the various human authors. But God originated it and thus the final product is preserved from error.
The only verse which gives us a hint of how God accomplished the process of inspiration is 2 Peter 1:21: “No prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy spirit spoke from God.” The word “moved” is used in Acts (27:15, 17) to describe the effect of strong winds upon Paul’s ship. Luke says that the ship was “driven along” by the wind, meaning that it was no longer under the control of the sailors, but of the wind. But just as the sailors were active, though not in control, so the human authors of Scripture were active, but not in control (see Charles Ryrie, What You Should Know About Inerrancy [Moody Press], p. 46). The Holy Spirit moved the authors so that the words they wrote were the words God intended. Since the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth (John 16:13), He did not superintend errors. The Bible is the Word of God.
At this point a critic might accuse me of begging the question. I’m saying that the Bible is the inspired Word of God because the Bible says so. But anybody can make a claim like that and it doesn’t prove a thing. So how do we verify whether or not the Bible’s claim is true?
A. WE MUST APPROACH THE BIBLE PROPERLY.
The Bible says that God scoffs at scoffers (Prov. 3:34). If you do not humble yourself before God and ask Him to open your spiritually blind eyes, you won’t be able to understand His truth (1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 4:4; 2 Thess. 2:11-12). Jesus said (John 7:17), “If any man is willing to do [God’s] will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.” In other words, the issue is being willing to submit to God. If you come to the Bible to find fault with it and to provide yourself with excuses to continue in rebellion against God, you will find supposed errors. But if you come in submission to God, with the desire to follow His ways, you will find solutions to most of the difficulties.
The late theologian Kenneth Kantzer had a friend whose mother was killed. Kantzer first heard about her death through a trusted mutual friend who reported that the woman had been standing on the street corner, was hit by a bus, was fatally injured and died a few minutes later. A short time later he heard from the dead woman’s grandson that she was riding in a car that was in a collision, she was thrown from the car and killed instantly. The boy was quite certain of his facts. Which story was correct?
If you didn’t like or trust the grandson, you would conclude that the boy was confused and that the first account was the correct one. Or, if you had a problem with the first man, you could believe the boy’s account. Or, you could scoff at both accounts and say that obviously they contradict one another, so neither story is true. Your approach to the credibility of the witnesses would greatly affect your conclusion.
Dr. Kantzer later learned from the dead woman’s daughter that her mother had been waiting for a bus, was hit by another bus and critically injured. A passing motorist put her in his car and sped off to the hospital. En route, he was in a collision in which the injured woman was thrown from the car and killed instantly. Both accounts were literally true! (Christianity Today [10/7/88], p. 23.)
Let’s apply that story to the problem of harmonizing some of the seeming contradictions in the gospel accounts, such as Peter’s denials or the resurrection narratives. If you approach the problems as a skeptic, you may quickly conclude, “There are errors in the Bible.” I think that’s an unscholarly and arrogant approach for several reasons. First, the different accounts make it obvious that the various authors were not fabricating a story in collusion with one another, or they would have ironed out these apparent differences. Second, we have no reason to doubt the integrity of these eyewitness accounts. Third, since they were there and I wasn’t and since they are truthful men of integrity (as the totality of their writings shows), I would need strong, compelling evidence to say that they are in error, even if I cannot harmonize the accounts.
The proper approach doesn’t make all the difficulties in the Bible disappear. There are some tough problems to resolve, but not nearly as many as critics allege. Dr. Ryrie estimates that if you put together a composite list of the supposed errors, there would be about two dozen, more or less (ibid., p. 83). But the crucial issue is how you approach those problems. You don’t come to the holy God of the universe as a scoffer or skeptic and expect for Him to meet you on your terms. You must come acknowledging your need for understanding of spiritual truth. If you come to Him with a submissive, obedient spirit of faith in Jesus Christ, He will reveal to you the truth of His Word. You will grow to discover that…
2. The Bible is without error in all its teaching.
This is the heart of the issue. If there are errors in the Bible, then how can we trust it? So how can we be sure that the Bible is without error? There are two ways to reason:
A. DEDUCTIVE EVIDENCE: THE GOD OF TRUTH WOULD NOT INSPIRE ERROR.
A deductive argument (or syllogism) consists of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion that stems from the two premises. Any deductive argument is only as good as its premises. If a premise is faulty, then the conclusion is invalid. This argument would not prove anything to a skeptic, but it ought to carry some weight with those who agree that the Bible is inspired by God. It goes like this: Major premise: God is a God of truth (Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18; Ps. 119:160). Minor premise: God breathed out (originated) all the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21). Conclusion: The Scriptures are God’s truth (John 17:17). (This syllogism adapted from Ryrie, p. 40.) A true God cannot originate error.
A second line of deductive reasoning goes as follows: Major premise: Jesus Christ believed and taught that the Bible is trustworthy and without error. Minor premise: I believe in and follow Jesus Christ. Conclusion: I must believe that the Bible is trustworthy and without error. To me, this is one of the strongest arguments for the total reliability of the Bible. Everything that Jesus Christ said with reference to the Scriptures shows that He had implicit trust in the totality of Scripture as the authoritative and reliable Word of God. Consider:
(1). JESUS BELIEVED THE SCRIPTURES TO BE AUTHORITATIVE.
Often Jesus referred to the Scriptures as the authority for His actions. He assumed that if Scripture said it, that settled it. In His temptation by Satan, Jesus responded each time with, “It is written” and then quoted Scripture. He refuted the Jewish leaders by referring to Scripture (Matt. 19:3-5; Mark 7:5-13; 12:26). He said that all the Scriptures bore witness to Him (Luke 24:25, 27, 44-46; John 5:39).
(2). JESUS BELIEVED THE SCRIPTURES TO BE THE WORD OF GOD, NOT THE WORD OF MEN.
He referred to Moses’ writings as both the commandment and Word of God (Mark 7:8, 9, 13). He referred to David’s Psalm 110 as being spoken “by the Holy Spirit” (Mark 12:36).
(3). JESUS BELIEVED IN THE FACTUAL HISTORICITY OF THE SCRIPTURES.
He acknowledged that God created Adam and Eve and referred to them as real people, not myths (Matt. 19:3-5). He referred to Noah and the great flood as historical precedent for what will happen when He returns (Matt. 24:37-39). He verified the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and of Lot’s wife (Luke 17:28-29, 32). He accepted the story of Jonah and the great fish as actual history (Matt. 12:40). Jesus made many other references to Old Testament people and events. Clearly, He saw them as true history, not as fiction.
(4). JESUS BELIEVED THE VERY WORDS AND EVEN LETTERS OF SCRIPTURE TO BE AUTHORITATIVE, RELIABLE, AND SIGNIFICANT.
In Jesus’ debate with the Sadducees about the resurrection (Matt. 22:23-32), His argument hinged on a particular verse of Scripture (Exod. 3:6), and further on a particular verb tense (present) in that verse!
In Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus upheld the Law and Prophets (a reference to the entire Old Testament) and said that it will all be fulfilled, down to the smallest letter or stroke (“jot or tittle,” KJV). The smallest letter is yod, which looks like an English apostrophe. The stroke (“tittle”) is a reference to a small extension that distinguishes the Hebrew daleth from resh. His point is that even the most minute details of God’s Word are reliable and accurate.
(5). JESUS TAUGHT THAT HIS OWN WORDS WERE THE AUTHORITATIVE, TRUSTWORTHY WORD OF GOD.
He said (John 12:49-50), “For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak. I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me.” (See also, Matt. 24:35.) Obviously, Jesus affirmed all of the Old Testament and His own words as being the word of God, totally reliable and accurate not only in spiritual matters, but in factual and historical matters as well. If we claim to be followers of Christ, we must follow Him in affirming the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
A. INDUCTIVE EVIDENCE: THE BIBLE HAS BEEN AUTHENTICATED AS ACCURATE PROPHETICALLY, HISTORICALLY, AND SCIENTIFICALLY.
Whole books have been written on each of these points, so I can only skim the surface. Consider,
(1). PROPHETIC ACCURACY—
There are hundreds of prophecies in the Bible that were made in some cases hundreds of years before they were fulfilled, with too much specific detail to be mere coincidence. For example, Daniel 11 reads like a history of the 300 years that followed Daniel’s lifetime. He also predicted the succession of four great world powers: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome (Daniel 2 & 7). The stunning precision of these prophecies has led liberal critics, who have an a priori bias against the miraculous, to say that Daniel had to be written after the fact, although there are solid, scholarly reasons for believing that the book was written in the sixth century B.C. as claimed (see, Josh McDowell, Daniel in the Critics’ Den [Campus Crusade for Christ, 1979]).
Ezekiel 26 predicted that the city of Tyre would be destroyed and the ruins scraped off and dumped into the sea. Nebuchadnezzar fulfilled the first part of the prophecy when he destroyed the city in 573 B.C. But for 250 years the city was not dumped into the sea. Then Alexander the Great came along in 322 B.C. and used the ruins of the city to build a causeway out to an offshore island where the people had fled, thus fulfilling Ezekiel’s prediction that the stones and timbers of Tyre would be laid in the sea.
But the most amazing prophecies are those relating to Christ. As He said, the Scriptures bear witness of Him (John 5:39). Scholars say that there are over 300 specific Old Testament prophecies relating to the person of Christ. Micah 5:2 predicted Bethlehem as His birthplace. Zechariah 9:9 prophesied that Jerusalem’s king would come to her lowly, riding on the colt of a donkey, which Jesus fulfilled in the triumphal entry (Matt. 21:5). Psalm 22 describes the death of Messiah by crucifixion hundreds of years before that was known as a means of execution. Isaiah 53 predicts that Jesus would bear our sins as the lamb of God, silent before His accusers. It says that His grave would be with wicked men, yet He would be with a rich man in His death. That was specifically fulfilled when Jesus was crucified with the two criminals, yet buried in the tomb of the wealthy Joseph of Arimathea.
Math professor Peter Stoner (Science Speaks [Moody Press], pp. 101-107) took just eight of the prophecies that Christ fulfilled and calculated conservatively that the odds of these prophecies being fulfilled in one man just by chance would be one in 10 to the 17th power! He illustrates this number by saying that if you took that many silver dollars, they would cover the state of Texas two feet deep. Mark one, stir it thoroughly into the whole mass, blindfold a man and let him travel as far and long over the state as he wishes. He must pick that one silver dollar. Those are the odds that Jesus could, by chance, have fulfilled just eight of the prophecies made about Him. And there are over 300!
(2). HISTORICAL ACCURACY—
In spite of numerous critical scholars who have attempted to disprove the historical accuracy of the Bible, none have succeeded. One familiar example concerns the Hittite people, mentioned often in the Old Testament. Skeptics in the 19th century scoffed at the Bible’s mentioning this race, since there was no corroborating evidence that such a people existed in history. Then, in 1906, the Hittite capital was uncovered about 90 miles east of Ankara, Turkey, silencing the critics on that point.
Critics attacked Daniel’s mention of Belshazzar as the final king of Babylon, since Herodotus (450 B.C.) refers to Nabonidus as the final king. But more recent archaeological discoveries of some tablets dated from the 12th year of Nabonidus show that his son, Belshazzar, reigned in Babylon as co-regent while Nabonidus was at war in Arabia for ten years. Thus the book of Daniel is precisely correct when Belshazzar promises Daniel that he will make him a third ruler in the kingdom (Dan. 5:16, 29).
(3). SCIENTIFIC ACCURACY—
Although the Bible is not a science textbook and should not be pushed beyond its intended purpose, there are no proven scientific inaccuracies in the Bible. Obviously, the Bible sometimes uses poetic language and figures of speech that are not intended to be taken literally (such as the sun setting or rising). Moses’ purpose in Genesis 1 was not to write a detailed scientific account of origins. This is not to say that it is inaccurate, but rather that Moses’ point was not to answer all our scientific questions. Rather, he wants to show God as the mighty Creator who spoke the universe into existence through His power in an orderly manner.
We need to be careful not to capitulate to science as if it were inerrant (since it often has been proved wrong), nor to hold to our interpretation of debatable texts as if we were inerrant. The Bible, rightly interpreted, is inerrant. We can rest in the fact that there are no proven scientific inaccuracies in the Bible, even though it was written thousands of years before modern science.
Conclusion
John Warwick Montgomery wrote (Christianity Today [7/29/77], pp. 41-42),
... the total trust that Jesus and the apostles displayed toward Scripture entails a precise and controlled hermeneutic. They subordinated the opinions and traditions of their day to Scripture; so must we. They did not regard Scripture as erroneous or self-contradictory; neither can we. They took its miracles and prophecies as literal fact; so must we. They regarded Scripture not as the product of editors and redactors but as stemming from Moses, David, and other immediately inspired writers; we must follow their lead. They believed that the events recorded in the Bible happened as real history; we can do no less.
Thus, there are solid reasons why you can trust the Bible. If you have never investigated its claims carefully, you owe it to yourself to read the gospel accounts about the main character of the Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ. Remember, you must read with a willingness to follow Him as Lord if His claims are authenticated. You will find that Jesus is who He claimed to be, God in human flesh, who gave Himself as the penalty for our sins.
If you are a Christian struggling with doubts, you can trust the Bible over and above all modern claims to truth. It speaks accurately and authoritatively to the problems we all grapple with. None who have trusted in God and followed the commands and counsel given in the Bible have been ultimately disappointed. The Bible is a life-changing book. I invite you to commit yourself afresh to read it, study it, and apply its teachings to your life. You can count your life on it!
Application Questions
Why Should We Trust the Bible?
I once asked Spanish pastor and theologian José de Segovia what he would say to someone who wanted to start reading the Bible. There are many things he might have said, but he said this, and I’ll never forget it:
“The Bible is a book whose reading never leaves us indifferent. It will disquiet us. It will make us restless because it’s a book unlike any other book. It is the Book of Books.”[1]
Has the Bible ever disquieted you? Maybe you would just as soon remain indifferent to the Bible, but you feel an unsettling restlessness as you read it. You wonder, “Can I really trust this book?”
There are four main reasons why I believe we should trust the Bible.
1. The Bible claims to be inspired by God.
“Wait a minute,” you say, “That’s circular reasoning and it doesn’t prove anything!” Maybe, but it’s important to start here. Whatever we think about the Bible, we must acknowledge what the Bible claims for itself.
The Apostle Paul writes in 2 Timothy 3:15 that “all Scripture is breathed out by God.” The Bible itself claims to be God’s inspired word, down to the very last word. Furthermore, the Old Testament prophets cite the pronouncements of earlier prophets as God-inspired and thus authoritative (Zech. 7:7). The Apostle Peter says Paul’s writings are hard to understand, but that they’re to be regarded as Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16). Jesus himself during his wilderness temptation regards Old Testament commands as divinely given and thus to be obeyed (Matt. 4), and he cites Old Testament writings as authoritative support for his own teaching (Matt. 5).
So, the Bible itself claims to be God’s inspired word. That forces us to make a decision–the Bible’s claims about itself disallow indifference. This Book will only allow us to accept it as either the final authority for our lives, or else insidiously misleading. But you can’t just go on thinking it’s a book with some good things to say. You must make your choice.[2]
2. The Bible has a shockingly coherent message.
There is something majestic and pure about this book.[3] “The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times” (Ps. 12:6). The Bible’s majesty and purity are most apparent in the coherence of its one, magnificent message: God’s glory in the redemption of sinners through faith in Jesus (Luke 24:37; John 5:39).
The Bible’s composition spanned millennia and involved many people with varying levels of education and life-experiences from a variety of geographical locations and cultures. Yet its message is thoroughly coherent (1 Pet. 1:10-12). It’s shocking, really! All of the many parts and various points of Scripture cohere like a beautifully-woven tapestry revealing God’s amazing grace to sinners.
Only God could bring about a book like the Bible, revealing through so many different human authors one coherent message of grace for sinners by faith in Jesus.
3. The Bible has the power to change us.
We can trust the Bible because it has the power to change us. It converts sinners and continues working in believing hearts. Again, the Bible is a book about Jesus. It’s by hearing this word of Christ that sinners come to faith in him (Rom. 10:7). This book “has the power to make us wise unto salvation” (2 Tim. 3:15).
Paul observed this life-changing power of the word. Writing to the church at Thessalonica, he says: “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.”
That’s the Bible’s power to convert the unbelieving heart, but its power to change doesn’t stop there. Paul goes on to say this is the word of God “which is at work in you believers” (1 Thess. 2:13).
4. The Holy Spirit convinces us that the Bible is true.
This final reason why we can trust the Bible is unavoidably subjective yet, at the same time, the most powerful reason to believe the Bible. Ultimately, the Holy Spirit “bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very Word of God.”[4] The Bible’s message of grace is foolish to sin-hardened hearts. Only the Holy Spirit working in our hearts through the Scripture can overcome our indifference and disbelief, opening our eyes to see and believe that the Bible is true (2 Cor. 2:14).
At the end of the day, there is only one way these reasons (and others we could add) will compel us to trust the Bible and believe that, as de Segovia said, it is a book unlike any other book–the Book of Books. We have to read it and allow it to make us restless, to disquiet us as the Holy Spirit puts the word to work in us, changing our hearts by its coherent message of grace for sinners in Christ. Only then can we believe that it is indeed what it claims to be: the life-changing word of God.
10 Reasons Why You Should Trust the Bible
10 Reasons Why You Should Trust the Bible
We can have confidence in the Bible as God’s true and trusted speech to us.
We can have confidence in the Bible as God’s true and trusted speech to us.
Written by Nicholas Davis | Wednesday, June 6, 2018
The Bible was written by many authors over more than two thousand years, and yet it has a unity to it that is unlike any other religious collection of books. This unity exists because one divine author wrote it—God. The Old Testament anticipates the New Testament, and the New Testament recasts old metaphors and imagery, showing forth the organic unity of it all!
Are there any good reasons to believe the Bible is true? Can an old book like the Bible really be trusted? There are, of course, many good reasons to believe that the Bible is indeed a trustworthy document.
We can have confidence in the Bible as God’s true and trusted speech to us. Here are ten reasons to trust the Bible.
1. The Bible is historically accurate.
The field of archaeology demonstrates that the Bible is historically accurate. Now, this does not mean that it is inherently “true.” It does mean that it is reliable in its historical details—which gives some pretty good credibility to what else it has to say. If we can trust that the Bible accurately records for us geographical places (Israel, Egypt, Babylon, etc.) and historical people (Herod or Pontius Pilate, for example), it’s very likely it has many other true things to say. One reason I could never trust the Book of Mormon, in contrast, is that most of the places listed in its geography are make-believe. It’s very difficult for me to trust a book that is claiming to be nonfiction when its geography is clearly fiction.
2. Compared to other ancient documents, there is no comparison!
The New Testament has been preserved more than any other ancient work. There are over 5,800 Greek manuscripts. The runner-up for ancient texts is Homer’s Iliad, with less than 2,000 copies. After that, the works of Aristotle, Herodotus, Tacitus, and others are even more poorly represented with only two handfuls (or less!) for each.
Now having an abundance of manuscripts doesn’t tell us whether or not the original text is true—it only tells us that we accurately have a handle on what that original text was. We have to read the New Testament itself if we want to find out how trustworthy it is. Still, we do have good reason to trust that the English printed edition we have on our bookshelf or next to our nightstand is, in fact, the very Bible that was completed in the first century. That’s another great place to start in being able to trust the Bible, and it’s more than we can say for any other ancient text in the world.
3. The New Testament manuscripts were written by eyewitnesses.
These eyewitnesses were real people who saw (and touched, see 1 John 1) firsthand the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Luke does mention that he did historical research before writing his Gospel (Luke 1:1–4), but he went straight to other eyewitnesses in order to write these things down. The whole New Testament claims that Jesus Christ died on a cross and rose from the dead three days after dying.
He was seen risen from the dead by all of the original apostles (except Judas who hung himself) and by over five hundred different people (1 Cor. 15:6). There was nothing to gain but death by asserting this claim, but many of these disciples chose to die as martyrs rather than deny the truth of Christ’s resurrection. The fact that so many early disciples died as martyrs based on what they personally witnessed only bolsters the reality that it was true.
4. The Bible cared about what women thought at a time when no one else did.
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1–2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1) make it a point to tell us that the first people to report that the tomb of Jesus was empty were women. Not men. Women. In the first century, a woman’s opinion was not viewed as credible testimony in court. (Just read the Jewish historian, Josephus, or the Jewish Talmud to verify this fact.) A woman’s opinion didn’t matter. But the Bible says it does. The last group of people we would expect to find the empty tomb was the first group to whom God looked and used: women.
If first-century followers of Christ were going to fabricate a story about Jesus rising from the dead, they wouldn’t want to include this embarrassing detail about women finding the tomb first. They would have omitted it to make the strongest case possible for the resurrection. And yet, the Gospel writers did not omit this detail. They told the truth as it was. We can trust that the Bible is true because they included this small but magnificent detail. They recounted what happened truthfully, without bearing false witness. Other ancients might have pointed to its seeming absurdity: “You say women found the tomb? What a bunch of baloney! Never trust a woman’s testimony!” Yet, the Bible was way ahead of its time in giving honor and respect to women.