The Bible: Word of God or Myth of Men?

2011 June 8
more by

[Like other articles by the prolific R.C. Symes, this article's length makes it unsuitable for a podcast, but I still want to publish it. Good stuff. -Andy]

By R.C. Symes
Article ID: 155

If the Bible has many errors, contradictions and falsehoods, can it truly be the word of an all-wise God? Or is the Bible more a creation of fallible men who are expounding their own messages while claiming God’s inspiration and approval? The answer has profound implications for Bible believers and their claims about biblical inerrancy.

Whose Bible?

Before we attempt to answer the question whether the Bible was the divine word of God or a man-made myth (only men wrote the Bible – women were viewed as inferior and unworthy), we should first be clear about which Bible we are talking about. Surprisingly, Christian denominations cannot agree on what constitutes inspired Holy Scripture. Is it the Bible of Roman Catholics, Protestants or Orthodox Christians? Roman Catholics claim that the Bible contains 73 canonical (authentic) books, while most Protestants accept only 66 because they reject the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books, and Orthodox Christians accept 76 books. Each denomination claims its Bible is the true word of God. Which one is to be believed?

Christian denominations in the world today agree that the New Testament contains 27 books, however there is little consensus among them as to what God’s word really means. Is it any wonder that with over 20,000 denominations, there are competing Christian interpretations about the means to salvation, atonement, the nature of the sacraments, prophecies, Christ’s Second Coming and other doctrines based on the Bible? If God is not the author of confusion or disorder as the Bible says (1 Corinthians 14:33), how is all this disagreement to be explained? Is it not more likely that the Bible is really the work of men, not an all-wise and all-powerful God? Surely God could have provided better guidance and clarity as to which scriptures should have been included in His book and what they mean.

How was the Bible compiled?

The Hebrew (or Old) Testament of 24 books was written from about 1,000 BCE (Before Common Era) to the beginning of the 1st century CE and was not formally agreed to by Jewish rabbis until about the 10th century CE. These books were accepted as canonical mainly because of traditional use. The early Christians used the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures known as the Septuagint (which included the Apocrypha) that was completed around 200 BCE. The Septuagint translation sometimes varies from the original Hebrew wording (e.g. the Greek version of Psalm 22 claimed by Christians to prophesize Jesus’ crucifixion, says in verse 16, “they pierced my hands and my feet”, but the Hebrew version says “they have hacked off my hands and my feet” (New English Bible translation)). This loss of limbs did not happen to Jesus at his crucifixion.

For the early Christians, deciding on what books to include in the New Testament was complicated. Jesus left no written material before his death about 30 CE. The 27 canonical books of the New Testament were written between about 50 to150 CE. Scholars can determine approximate dates of biblical manuscripts by the material used to write on, the style of writing, historical references in the text, etc. However, there were over 40 other Christian gospels, books and letters in circulation from the second to third centuries (e.g. Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of the Ebionites, Acts of John, 3 Corinthians, etc.), before the canon of the New Testament was finalized late in the fourth century.

Who decided what was in and what was out?

In the first three centuries there were many versions of Christianity. Even Paul complained of different preaching to his (Galatians 1:6). Theological disagreements grew over the decades with different gospels and epistles supporting one view about Christ over the other. The Catholic faction, which was organized better through its hierarchical leadership and deft use of the Old Testament to strengthen the legitimacy of its teachings, eventually won out and suppressed the other “heresies”. This faction eventually declared which books would be acceptable as God’s word, but for its first 300 years, Christianity did not have the New Testament as we now know it.

The finalization of the New Testament canon was based less on objective criteria and reasoning than on the tradition of which books were widely used in churches and recommended by authorities as being genuinely authored by an apostle. Sometimes curious reasoning prevailed as can be seen by Bishop Irenaeus’ explanation of why there are only four gospels: “It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are, since there are four directions of the world in which we are, and four principal winds ….” (Against All Heresies, 3XI8, c.180 CE).There was much competition and confusion in the first few centuries as to what really was the Word of God. Biblical literalists have to admit that this was a strange state of affairs to be tolerated by an omnipotent God concerned about the dissemination of his truth.

Our New Testament versions are not the originals

The original Greek manuscripts of the books of the New Testament have not survived. What are extant are hand written copies of copies of copies – over 5,600 fragments or complete copies in the original Greek, with 94 per cent dating from the 9th century. The earliest is a tiny fragment from the Gospel of John dated to the first half of the 2nd century. The earliest complete copy of the Gospel of Mark which was written about the year 70, dates from the 4th century. Our earliest copies of Paul’s writings come about 150 years after he wrote them. Mistakes in the copying process resulted in thousands of variations in these texts until the invention of the printing press in the 15th century. The differences were mostly spelling and grammatical errors, but also there were some omissions, insertions and mistranslations in the New Testament. There are some significant differences and contradictions in the biblical texts that have a bearing on historical accuracy and Christian theology.

The earliest surviving version of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus (circa 300 CE), contains the book the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas that had been read in churches for years. They were eventually expunged from the canonical New Testament for not reflecting orthodox thinking. There are other books that are actually referenced by New Testament writers that are missing from the canon. For example, Paul urges believers to read his letter to the Laodiceans (see Colossians 4:16). It is disputed as to whether the surviving Latin copy, originally in some Bibles, is genuine. Also, the writer of Jude references the Jewish apocryphal book of Enoch as though it was authoritative (Jude 14-15). It is ironic that Jude is accepted into the Biblical Canon, but the book he quotes from is not. The early New Testament was a fluid entity for many decades and determining what was really the Word of God was controversial. Ultimately, men who did not personally know the authors of the scriptures made the decisions.

Biblical text variations and forgeries

In the Old Testament there is a curious case of Biblical plagiarism (compare Chapter 37 in Isaiah with Chapter 19 in 2 Kings). Was the text about King Hezekiah asking for Isaiah’s prayers so important that God chose to inspire another writer to repeat the story almost word for word over a hundred years later? Or is it more probable that one author copied the words of another without admitting his source? (Also compare the copying of 2 Kings 20:1-19 with Isaiah 38:1-8 and chap. 39). So much for divine inspiration and textual integrity!

In the New Testa ment there are a number of verses that we now know were not part of the earliest manuscripts. For example, the authors of the most famous English Bible (the King James Version of 1611, or KJV) did not have access to the earliest Greek manuscripts. The difficult doctrine of the Trinity is supposedly confirmed by the KJV wording of 1 John 5:7: “There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” This wording is not in the earliest manuscripts, but was added to some texts in the early 16th century, to support the doctrine of the Trinity (i.e., although the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each God, there are not three Gods, but only one God consisting of three persons).

Likewise in the earliest Gospel, Mark, the final verses (chap. 16: 9-20) that describe the resurrection appearances of Jesus are an interpolation (i.e. forgery). These verses do not appear in the earliest manuscripts and the writing style is different, as is the choice of words and phrases compared to the original Mark. Mark abruptly ends his gospel with the women seeing an empty tomb, but there are no resurrection appearances. They are told by a young man to tell the disciples that Jesus is risen and will meet them in Galilee, but they flee in terror and tell no one. This ending was unsatisfactory for the forger, so he added verses reflecting Jesus’ appearances now listed in the other gospels. As well, he added references to believers conducting exorcisms, charming snakes, and having immunity to poison. Is this addition not by Mark still God’s word?

Not only are there additions to the New Testament, but also there are textual gospel variations due to omissions. For example, to avoid contradictory accounts about Jesus’ ascension to heaven, some manuscripts delete the reference to Jesus’ ascension on Easter Sunday evening found in Luke’s gospel. The phrase “and was carried up into heaven” found in Luke 24:51 was removed because it conflicts with the assertion that Jesus did not ascend until forty days after his resurrection (Acts 1:3, 9-11; 13:31). Which is true – Luke or Acts?

Modern translation bias

Variations in the Bible’s text are not just a result of limited access to the earliest manuscripts or poor translations of the original Hebrew or Greek. One modern translation, namely The New International Version (NIV), is a product of translators who are committed “to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God’s word in written form.” (NIV Preface, p. xxxiv). These translators have access to the best manuscripts, yet it is disturbing to note what they sometimes choose to leave out or deliberately change in the accepted manuscript translations used in most modern Bible versions.

For example, the NIV changes a contradiction in the received manuscripts by omitting words from the original text. In Genesis 2:17.  Adam is warned by God in the original Hebrew text that if he eats fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, “…you will die the same day.” (Good News Bible). The NIV translation removes the time reference to imminent death and says “…for when you eat of it you will surely die.” This is done to remove the contradiction in the Bible that says Adam, after he ate the forbidden fruit did not die but instead lived to the age of 930 years (Genesis 5:5) and therefore God who cannot lie (1 Samuel 15:29 and Titus 1:2) indeed must have been a liar.

Is it too much to ask that the God of Truth would ensure, through inspiration or otherwise, that His word would be accurate in its original revelation and free of errors, additions and omissions in all subsequent translations? How does the fundamentalist believer explain that all these variations in Bible versions are still the literal and true word of God?

What do Churches say about inerrancy?

According to the Pew Center for Research (April 4, 2006), 76 per cent of American Christians believe the Bible is the word of God (with 36% of those believing it contains His actual words to be taken literally). Most biblical scholars have abandoned the claim that God dictated the words of the Bible (in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek) to its many authors. There are just too many stylistic and historical differences in the texts to claim one Author for them all.

The claim of most Christians is that the authors were “inspired” by God to write what they did (2 Timothy 3:16). Many believe that because the Bible comes from God, it has to be inerrant, that is without any errors or contradictions with respect to history, science, morality and matters necessary for salvation. Other Christians qualify this inerrancy to pertain only to the original manuscripts. However, the originals are no longer extant and therefore there is no way of proving this claim. We are asked to believe that an all-powerful God preserved the original manuscript writers from error, but kept these texts hidden from us so that we have to rely on unreliable copies filled with mistakes. Why would God allow confusion of his word in this way?

The Roman Catholic Church has modified its position on the inerrancy of the Bible. Proclaimed by church Councils, and reaffirmed  by Pope Leo XIII in 1893, it was held that all the canonical books “are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; … it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.” (Providentissimus Deus, Encyclical Letter). In more recent times the Church’s position has moved to the more ambiguous “we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” (Dei Verbum, Article 11, Second Vatican Council, 1965). This statement can be interpreted as meaning scripture is totally inerrant or only inerrant with respect to matters of salvation.

A group of 300 international evangelical Protestant leaders met in Chicago, USA in 1978 and upheld the inerrancy of the Bible. They affirmed in part: “Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives” (Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Short Statement, #4). More progressive Christians do not consider the Bible as inerrant, but rather a product of fallible authors writing in the context of the beliefs, knowledge and mores of their times.

Biblical errors and contradictions

Those who believe that every word of the Bible is true because the Bible is God-made, not man-made, have their work cut out for them to explain its many errors and contradictions. Some key problems, to name but a few, are found in the following areas:

History and Archaeology

The Old Testament has many historical errors confirmed by archaeology. For example,

Joshua’s destruction of Jericho (Joshua, chapter 6) by blowing horns to make its mighty walls come tumbling down and then massacring the city’s inhabitants, is an historical impossibility. According to the Bible’s chronology this took place around 1450 BCE, but multiple archaeological digs in recent decades have confirmed that Jericho was no more than a ghost town between 1550 to 1200 BCE.

Archaeologists have also failed to find any tangible records of the Israelites’ Exodus out of Egypt after God sent seven plagues and natural disasters on Egypt (for which, by the way, there are no records in Egyptian history). Moses led about 600,000 men (double that counting women and children – an unbelievable total; Exodus 12:37) in the Sinai wilderness for 40 years according to the Bible. Most of that time was spent at Kadesh-Barnea (Numbers 13:26, 20:1), but detailed examinations of the area have revealed that there was no occupation there before the 10th century BCE. This is about 300 years after the supposed Exodus!

Primitive Science and Cosmology

There are two contradictory stories of the Creation of the earth and the heavens in the book of Genesis, written either by different authors or an author drawing on different sources. In chapter 2:4-24, which is probably the oldest version of the story, creation takes place in the space of one day, and man was made before any plants and animals, and woman was made later after animals failed as suitable helpers for man. However, in chapter 1, creation occurs over six days, with plants, fish, birds, and animals created before man and woman, who were created at the same time. Which Bible version is the true word of God? Or does it not make more sense to regard these Bible stories as creation myths collated in the first millennium BCE, especially in light of modern scientific evidence about the age of the earth and the evolution of species?

Biblical cosmology portrays a three tier universe (the heavens, earth, and the underworld). The basic observations of primitive man are related in the Bible as God’s word – the earth is described as flat (Isaiah 11:12; Matthew 4:8), stationary (Psalms 93:1; 104:5) with the sun moving back and forth across the heavens (Ecclesiastes 1:5). Earth is also covered by a vault (inverted dome) held up by pillars (Job 26:11; Psalm 104:3) in which are fixed the stars and windows to let down rain (Genesis 7:11). Biblical literalists who accept all this as God’s true word (as did Jesus) are ignoring proven knowledge.  And those who try to make the words mean something different in order to conform to scientific reality are distorting the original language and meaning.

The Flood Myth

Many fundamentalists still try to prove that the great worldwide flood at the time of Noah as related in Genesis chapters 6-9 is literally true. However, the geological record shows no signs of the earth covered in water 8.8 km (5.5 miles) deep which is the height of the earth’s highest mountain. Also, the wooden ark which was about 168 meters long (the length of about one and a half football fields) would have been too structurally unstable and leaky not to capsize. At the same time it would not have been large enough to hold over 45,000 species of the phylum Cordata (mammals, reptiles, birds and amphibians), or 90,000 paired individuals, as well as food and water for them. Also, how some unique species could have made their way from the Americas and Australia to Noah’s ark in the Middle East remains unsolvable. There were also over a million species of insects that needed to be accommodated as well as salt water fish species needing sea water (greater than the volume of the ark) for survival after the oceans were diluted by the rain. Feeding and waste removal for all these creatures for over a year had to be handled solely by Noah and his family! This is not history, but myth.

Yet what is most disturbing about this myth is the morality related to it. The Bible tells us that God was angry with human wickedness and therefore decided to kill almost all living creatures on the planet (not just humans). If this is true as fundamentalists claim, then this is the worst human genocide in history (only 8 people survived), and was a near mass extinction of all life, ostensibly carried out by a just and loving God.

But was it worth it? God appears to have been a poor judge of character when He decided to spare Noah, whom he thought was “a righteous man, the one blameless man of his time; he walked with God” (Genesis 6:9). After the flood was over and life began anew, the 600 year old Noah, the righteous favourite of God, was found drunk and naked in his tent by his youngest son Ham. For this discovery, Noah cursed not Ham, but Ham’s innocent son Canaan and condemned him to be a slave for Ham’s brothers (Genesis 9:20-29). Canaan’s offspring established the Canaanite nation that was mercilessly exterminated by the Israelites. Humans carried on after the flood in their usual wicked ways. How then does a moral and omniscient God justify wiping out most of life in the worldwide flood if mankind was only to continue on as before?

Mathematical Blunder

In the realm of mathematics the Bible gets it wrong when determining the value of  (pi), the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. In 1 Kings 7:23-26 and 2 Chronicles 4:2-5, a large container (the molten sea) is described as ten cubits in diameter and 30 cubits in circumference, therefore the value of pi would be 30/10 or 3.0. We know that pi is not 3.0, but an irrational number 3.14159, and it has to be exact as possible for uses in engineering, global positioning, etc. Over 1,000 years before 1 Kings was written, the ancient Egyptians calculated pi as having a value of 3.16049 as revealed in the Ahmes (or Rhind) Papyrus. This value is 0.6% off the modern value of pi compared to the 4.5% error in 1Kings. Biblical apologists try to rationalize the error by saying the measurements were only approximate, or were taken at different places on the vessel, or that the numbers have a mystical interpretation. These excuses rule out one another and can’t get around the obvious mistake in the plain reading of the Bible.

Prophecy Imagined

Those who take the Bible literally often point to its many prophecies that supposedly have been fulfilled in history, especially with respect to Jesus, as proof of its truth. This is a false assertion when it is realized that the authors of the Gospels, who were not eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus, selected passages of the Old Testament to flesh out their concept of the Messiah. There were too few biographical details of Jesus in the oral tradition or in the earliest written texts, namely the letters of Paul. Gospel authors, especially Mark who wrote the first biography of Jesus and whom Matthew and Luke copied to a large extent, turned to the Old Testament to flesh out the life of Jesus based on their assumptions of what must have happened.

For example, in describing Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, all the gospel authors except Matthew have Jesus riding on a donkey (e.g. Mark 11:1-11). However, Matthew has Jesus riding on two donkeys simultaneously (Matthew 21:1-7)! This is because Matthew misinterpreted the parallelism in the original source of the story, Zechariah 9:9. In Matthew’s case the importance of the Old Testament as a source of information about Jesus overrode common sense and the other Gospel authors’ descriptions of the event. Events in the life of Jesus, based on plagiarized details from the Old Testament, often taken out of context, were easily turned into prophetic “proofs” about the Messiah.

For a more detailed discussion of these issues please see my articles:

Bible prophecies and myth

Jesus’ miracles, religious myth and biblical contradictions

Conclusion

Humans throughout history have invented gods in their image – from Yahweh to Baal, from Zeus to Thor, from the Trinity to Allah. The Bible’s authors are no different. They borrow themes and myths from other cultures and over time develop their own fallible views about God, and ponder man’s relationship to the divine.

Unfortunately, the Bible soon begins with the terrible genocide of the world-wide flood and ends with the promise of another end of the world scenario at the Second Coming of Christ to judge mankind. Believers in Christ (only about 30% of the world’s population) will obtain eternal reward in heaven, but non-believers and sinners will suffer not just death (the ultimate punishment of the Old Testament), but this time they will face eternal punishment and torture in hell (Matthew 25:41-46; Revelation 14:9-11). Is this not more reflective of the word of vengeful men at a certain moment in history, than the eternal word of a loving and compassionate God?

To read the Bible as the literal, unerring, prophetic word of God rather than as a man-made religious myth, insults our knowledge of history, science and rational thought. The Book is more a history of the struggle of humans to make sense of their place in the world and the moral issues of their times. As such, the Bible is not the ultimate word, but only a tentative beginning. In essence, it is not God speaking, but man.


Did you like this article? Want more? Support Digital Bits Skeptic.

Other articles related to this topic:

from → Religion

14 Comments
2011 July 14
M. permalink

R.C.,

I read your article and have to admit I am impressed with your writing skills, your level of familiarity with enduring conflicts over the nature of the Bible, its authenticity and authorship, and some of the more difficult Scripture passages.  As a Christian myself, I have become familiar over the years with certain difficulties or challenges regarding certain verses and passages, for instance Mark 16:9-20, which you cite in support of the conclusion that the Bible is not the word of God but men.

It seems very unlikely that Mark authored verses 9-20 of chapter 16, as you say.  Similarly, John 7:53-8:11, which deals with a woman caught in adultery, most likely was not a part of the original contents of John’s gospel.  I won’t presume to speak for all Christians, but the approach I believe is called for is to consider each passage in the context of the whole Bible.  Many passages, especially doctrinal ones, cannot be fully understood in isolation from the rest of Scripture anyway.       

As to the challenging sections in Mark and John, nothing in them contradicts other Bible passages, and yet, they compel a humble approach by the faithful student of God’s word.  The Bible is not a textbook; if, as it says, it is God-breathed, then it comes from God’s infinite mind, originating from infinite wisdom, knowledge and understanding.  We are finite, able to know only in part, and must be in true fellowship with God if we are to gain knowledge rightly so called.  The Bible itself instructs the believer this way: “Study to show thyself approved to God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).  For the believer, the Bible is nothing like Apollo’s Oracle at Delphi.  It is neither arbitrary nor magic mysticism.  It is the word of the one true and living God, His propositional revelation to those He made in His own likeness.

The Bible does occasionally use figurative language, as, for example, in the passage you cite from Isaiah (11:12).  The passage speaks of the gathering together of the faithful remnant of Israel from “the four corners of the earth.”  It is a figurative way of referring to the whole earth.  It is an expression that the hearers of this word would easily have recognized and comprehended.  Allow me to make an analogy: Today, meteorologists and scientists speak of the sunrise and sunset, but they do not literally mean that the sun rises and falls.  We don’t gaze on a beautiful sunset and say something like, “What a beautiful earth rotation,” even though it is in fact the earth’s rotation that accounts for that amazing sight. 

Are you an atheist?  An agnostic?  We share something in common.  We live on this amazing planet, which is hurtling through space in a vast galaxy, which itself is a tiny part of an immense universe filled with all manner of celestial wonder.  We both can marvel at the natural world around us and its features - the trees, mountains, sky, oceans, rivers and streams, an untold variety of life, the human eye.  We observe regularity in the motions of the celestial bodies in the heavens, and in all manner of existence on earth – physical laws, the behavior of particles, the changing seasons, seed time and harvest.  There are these laws all about us.  But there is a powerful law within us.  We have a conscience.  Conscience literally means, “with knowledge.”  When we tell a lie, we know its wrong, and when we steal, our conscience accuses us.  If you came upon a tablet with laws etched into it, you would not doubt that someone was responsible for what you found.  We have a law that is etched on our hearts, and there can be no law without there being a lawgiver. 

The Bible, specifically Paul’s letter to the Romans, speaks of God’s unmediated revelation to mankind of His invisible attributes and divine power, which are clearly seen in the things that are made.  As well we possess an inward knowledge – our conscience.

It is still true, despite the testimony of the mountains and seas, that it is by faith that one believes God fashioned all that we see around us.  Without faith, it is impossible to please God.  Faith itself is a gift from God.

The truth is that all reasoning must be founded upon faith.  It is also true that without God, no knowledge is possible.  Allow me to expand on this.  For the atheist, God is not there – there is no all-knowing, all-wise Creator standing as the original of all facts for whom nothing is unknown or uncertain.  The atheist, in his professed rejection of God, presumes to be capable of obtaining certainty about some things, but in such a universe as he imagines, certainty about any one thing cannot be had without omniscience.  This is so because in an infinite universe, today’s “fact” may well require revision by some fact yet to be discovered.  All claims to certainty are destroyed.

The Christian’s faith that he can know some things is warranted, because such faith rests upon the sure revelation of the all-knowing, all-wise, and loving Creator God of the Bible.  In other words, the believer can know something in the true sense of knowing because God, who knows all things, has revealed it.

We all have faith, R.C.  The question, I believe, is in whom or what do we place that faith.  

Thank you for reading this.  I hope to hear from you.

M.      

  
 

    

 

2011 July 16
R. C. Symes permalink

Thank you for your thoughtful comments, M. However, we are still in disagreement about whether the Bible is God-made or man-made. I shall not revisit all the biblical revelations that undermine your claim that no parts of the Bible are in error or contradictory if taken in context, but you would do well to reread the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes to see two opposite contextual views on the meaning of life – the former claims virtue will be rewarded by God, and the latter that all is futile because only chance rules the world; or compare Romans 3 and James 2 on whether a believer is justified by faith or good works. Also, please see my other essays on this and other websites for further examples of biblical discontinuity and contradictions that point more to myth-making than historical truth.
 
You claim that our conscience is from God. On the contrary, the history of mankind shows that conscience is innate, for without it families and societies would not have been able to function and survive. Morals developed without divine revelation long before your Lawgiver “dictated” them on Mount Sinai. Indeed, the Ten Commandments owe much of their content to the Egyptian Book of the Dead that was written many centuries before the book of Exodus. Was Moses really a plagiarizer?
 
As for your observations on faith and revealed knowledge, then you must agree that Muslims, Mormons and Hindus who also have faith in what their gods have revealed, can each claim that their beliefs are true, just as Christians do using their holy book. Who is right and how do you prove otherwise, if faith is the only criteria? And for your claim that “all reasoning must be founded on faith”, this is the exact antithesis of what reason is. Whereas faith does not require reason and argumentation but only unsubstantiated belief in the supernatural, reason is the rigorous use of logic based on empirical evidence to arrive at a verifiable conclusion. I think that Benjamin Franklin summed up your approach best when he wrote, “The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason”. I had hoped that my article would be a catalyst to help you and other believers to open the other eye.
 
R. C. Symes

2011 July 16
M. permalink

R.C.,
Thanks for your reply. As much as I would love for you to believe as I do – to know Jesus and the joy of salvation – I understand that saving faith is not mere intellectual persuasion, but a complete inner transformation, a rebirth. Only the Holy Spirit can accomplish that.  St. Augustine knew that he had to believe in order to understand.  Faith precedes true knowledge.  The fear of God is the beginning of knowledge.
Faith in the God of the Scriptures is not at all as you perceive it.  It is not a leap in the dark.  Some time ago I had this very discussion on this site.  I tried demonstrating to some very bright skeptics that rejection of the God of the Bible removes the very foundation for rational thought.  You cannot prove anything without God.  Put another way, reality is unintelligible unless God’s existence is assumed.  Some of the most brilliant skeptics knew this to be true, though they would not acknowledge God.  Men like Hume and Bertrand Russell recognized that uniformity in nature, on which the pursuit of knowledge hangs, cannot be proven – not in an antitheistic worldview.  Nature may not be uniform after all – in your worldview.  And if nature is not uniform, you really don’t know – and cannot know – anything for sure about the world around you.  Think about this.
James and Romans are looking at two facets of the same truth.  A person is saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, not by works.  Nevertheless, genuine faith always produces fruit in the life of the believer. Good works will result.  This means that if anyone claims to have saving faith but lacks works, their faith is dead.  Put another way, good works are the evidence of salvation.
In Ecclesiastes, Solomon shows us that life will remain mysterious because we live in a fallen world and have a finite perspective.  Apart from God, “all is vanity.”  To fear God and obey Him is the whole duty of man.  Once again, the Bible interprets itself, as we learn from Job that there are things going on behind the scenes that we are not privy to.  Some knowledge is too wonderful for us.  The Christian is called to walk not by sight, but by faith.  Faith in human reason, or faith in the Almighty God – that is the question.
M.
 

2011 July 18
Andy Kaiser permalink

M.,

I’m not sure if you or R.C. could ever agree on whether or not you can have reason without God – both of you have different definitions of how reason is defined. However, I see you haven’t answered one of R.C.’s very pointed and applicable questions:

“As for your observations on faith and revealed knowledge, then you must agree that Muslims, Mormons and Hindus who also have faith in what their gods have revealed, can each claim that their beliefs are true, just as Christians do using their holy book. Who is right and how do you prove otherwise, if faith is the only criteria?”

2011 July 19
M. permalink

Andy,

The question R.C. and you raise is crucial.  It deserves a reply.  I have implicitly addressed it, but perhaps should try to be more clear.  Only faith in the God of the Bible, and in the truth of His word to man, can make sense of the world, life, death, suffering, love – the whole human experience.  All other belief systems outside of the Christian worldview annihilate meaning.  If you haven’t read or seriously considered the Bible, please humbly and sincerely ask the Lord to reveal Himself to you – to show you that He is, and who He is – through His word.  He will.

Allow me to provide a couple of examples supporting the view that Christianity is the one true faith.  In Genesis 1, we read, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”  In this opening statement lies profound scientific truth: We have time (“In the beginning . . .”); we have force (“God . . .”); we have energy (“created . . .”); we have space (“the heavens . . .”) ; and we have matter (“and the earth.”).  This is nothing like so many of the world’s religions’ creation accounts.

The Bible is historically accurate.  Archaeological finds have never positively disproved any historical statement of the Bible.  Archaeology is constantly proving the accuracy of the Bible.  Recent work in the field has shed light on the ancient Philistines and Gath.  The great wall of Solomon’s Temple, which received news coverage recently, reflects highly advanced construction by an advanced society, thus corresponding to the Bible’s description of it.  Take the ancient Hittites.  Skeptics used to scoff at the Bible’s frequent references to these people because there was no evidence they ever existed.  If my memory is accurate, it was in the 1970s when some major discoveries were made which rocked the skeptical viewpoint to its foundation.  Today, the Hittites are perhaps the most well-attested of all ancient civilizations archaeologically.  Don’t take my word for it.  Do your own research.    

The Bible speaks of the “paths of the seas”, a passage which Matthew Maury took to heart.  He went in search of these and discovered them and became the father of modern oceanography.

The Bible declares that God “hangs the earth on nothing.”  The earth, as the Bible says, is suspended in space, not resting on the backs of tortoises, say.

The Bible says that the life of an animal (and man) is in the blood.  Medical science would confirm this truth much later.

Hundreds of prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus, in His life, ministry, death and resurrection.  Consider what the late mathematician Peter Stoner said about the odds of one fulfilling even a few of these prophecies several hundred years later.  While he makes a very colorful analogy, the odds are, in a word, infinitesimal.

The Bible explains the human condition.  My personal experience is consistent with what the Bible says about the world, people, human nature, and all the rest.  The Bible shows us the possibility of redemption.  No other religion provides redemption.  They all represent a striving after personal righteousness and hold that no redemption is necessary.  And yet we all die, proof that we are guilty before God.  We all violate our conscience, think what we ought not think, say what we ought not say, and do what we ought not do.  We know we do wrong.  This means that we are aware that we are violating a law within us – a law written on our hearts.  A law requires a lawgiver.  God is that lawgiver.  He is the ultimate judge.  We all stand guilty before Him and need redemption.  He Himself offers that redemption in the person of His Son, Jesus.  All other religions leave the full weight of sin and guilt upon man’s shoulders with no redeemer.  Can a murderer appease a judge by promising never to murder again?  Would a just judge merely forgive his crime – turn a blind eye to it?  God is just.  He will judge the murderer and the thief and the liar.  We need redemption because God is just and will not turn a blind eye to sin.  This is rational.

The Bible promises uniformity of nature.  Consider God’s words to Noah recorded in the first book of the Bible.  The seasons will continue.  Seedtime and harvest.  Night and day.  Without a propositional revelation from an all-knowing God, there is no rational justification for assuming uniformity in nature.  Observation and past experience offer no proof for what future behavior will look like.  Physical Laws are observed behaviors.  To use past observations to prove future behavior is flat-line circularity.     

The Bible explains personality, revealing God as existing eternally in three persons, in perfect fellowship with one another.  How do other worldviews account for personality?

In Hinduism, all is Maya (illusion).  This concept destroys all genuine distinctions between things.  Good and evil are one and the same.  But how does one live consistently with this profession?  He cannot rationally condemn certain human behavior.  He cannot rationally applaud or encourage other human behavior.  His worldview destroys rationality.

Consider Islam.  It holds up the Koran as the inscripturation of a positive revelation of Allah on the one hand, and on the other hand, claims that Allah is supertranscendent (Allah cannot be accurately described, or his nature communicated, by human language). 

Or Buddhism.  There is no lawgiver.  The universe is impersonal.  Good and evil cannot be accounted for.  There is no ultimate justice.  There is no redemption.  

Or Mormonism.  It holds that an additional revelation (to the Bible) was given to inhabitants of America.  But its teaching plainly contradicts the Bible’s teaching.   

The Bible is true.  This can be seen by the heart that is open to its words, and that desires the truth.

M.       

  

2011 July 23
R. C. Symes permalink

M.,
Your response to Andy illustrates your sincere but closed mind-set about religion. You argue that of all the gods that billions of people around the world have faith in, only the Christian god is the true God. You claim you know this because the Bible tells you so. Why should the Bible be believed? It is true because it is the word of God. This is circular reasoning based on an unproven premise and a flawed book (the latter is the point of my article).
 
It must come as quite a shock to the hundreds of millions of non-believers that their belief systems “outside of the Christian worldview, annihilate meaning”. Had you been born in Saudi-Arabia and immersed in its culture and belief system, I have no doubt that you would make a similar presumptuous claim for Islam.
 
M., you try to use the example of the creation of the heavens and earth described in the book of Genesis to prove that “Christianity is the one true faith” because presumably it is more sophisticated than other creation accounts. The reality is that you are claiming that one primitive myth is better than the others. Trying to read scientific terms into biblical wording is a disservice to what science has discovered about inflationary cosmology, astrophysics and general relativity. The truth is that the Christians have used the Bible to justify suppressing scientific discoveries such as the astronomical findings of Copernicus and Galileo, and to excoriate the biological discoveries of Darwin.
 
As for your claim that the Bible is historically accurate and supported by archaeology, it depends on what is being claimed by the Bible’s authors. My articles illustrate that outside of mundane references to people and places, the Bible is often inaccurate concerning foundational religious events (e.g. the Exodus, the census that caused Mary and Joseph to go to Bethlehem, etc.). Your example of archaeology confirming the Bible’s description of the Hittites that you claim had previously been dismissed by skeptics, is wrong. Even the Christian website New Apologia admits “Some believe archaeologists once denied the existence or biblical timeline of the Hittites. However, after extensive research in this matter going all the way back to the mid. 18th century, we have found no evidence that archaeologists ever denied or questioned the existence or general timeline of the Hittite culture. We have found that alleged quotes identifying a denial of the Hittite culture are taken entirely out of context.”
 
Despite your avowal that Biblical texts must be taken in context, you pick texts that support your views and ignore others in the Bible that contradict them (the Bible is full of contradictions and this points to its human origins). Your quotation “God hangs the earth on nothing” (Job 26:7) is used as an example of modern scientific knowledge in the Bible (although there is no hint here of gravity or orbit). However, how do you reconcile the other claims of God in Job such as, “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundations? … On what do its supporting pillars rest?” (Job 38:4, 6), and “He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tumble” (Job9:6). Which is it – does the earth hang on nothing or is it resting on pillars?
 
As for your reference to the Bible saying that the life of animals (and man) is in the blood, this is hardly a divine revelation, but mere observation. Likewise, Matthew Maury (1806- 1873), a sailor and devout Christian, who was inspired by Psalm 8 to trace “the paths of the seas” hardly validates the Bible. He was not the first to chart ocean currents. For example, Ponce De Leon mapped the Florida current in the 1500’s, and Benjamin Franklin published a chart of the Gulf Stream in 1786, long before Maury’s work.
 
Unfortunately you do not address my article’s points about the false prophecies in the Bible, but continue to tout the discredited use of prophecies to “prove” that the Old Testament predicted and described the life of Jesus. The so-called prophecies were often so vague that they could be construed to refer to any holy person (e.g. Moses predicts God will raise up a prophet like himself (Deuteronomy 18: 15-18), and Christians claim that this refers to Jesus). Other prophecies are contradictory when applied to Jesus (e.g. when Jesus was on the cross, was he given wine with myrrh (Mark 15:23 based on Proverbs 31:6) or wine with gall (Matthew 27:34 based on Psalm 69:21)? Other so called prophecies are misinterpreted so they can apply to Jesus (e.g. Herod’s massacre of innocent children during Jesus’ childhood (Matthew 2: 16-18) was supposedly foretold in Jeremiah 31: 5-7; however, this passage is not about a future massacre, but a promise that the children of Israel will someday return home from their deportation to Babylon. What is more plausible – that authors writing centuries before the Gospel authors could foretell the future life of Jesus, or that the latter authors could use the Old Testament as source material for their narratives about Jesus and thus make the prophecies self-fulfilling?
 
Finally, your preoccupation with breaking God’s laws glosses over the punishments decreed by the Lawgiver. For example, those who break the Fourth Commandment (to not work on the Sabbath) must be killed (Exodus 31:14-15) and likewise children who break the Fifth Commandment (to honor their parents) by cursing them, must be put to death (Exodus 21:17). Are you prepared to justify that the punishment laid down by the word of God fits the crime?
 
You believe that we are all sinners in need of redemption by a heavenly lawgiver. For you, this is achieved by human sacrifice (i.e. death of Jesus) who becomes a scapegoat for our sins. This notion comes from a primitive time in human history and is contrary to a mature sense of justice. Substitutionary atonement is wishful thinking and a cop-out for owning up to our own responsibility for our actions.

Based on your failure to address my points rationally, I doubt that we can make any progress in this exchange of comments. It has, however, given me a greater appreciation of the religious world-view and the difficulty in finding common ground on which to carry on a meaningful discussion. Thank you for your effort.
 
R. C.
 

2011 July 23
M. permalink

R.C.,
I apologize – I was mistaken about the time of the major Hittite finds, confusing them with another discovery. The Hittite finds were around the turn of the century.
The link below contains one man’s reasons for confidence in the truth of the Bible.
http://waynestocks.com/2010/12/08/why-i-believe-the-bible-18a-old-testament-archaeology/
 
You are right, I do assume the Bible is true – the Christian God exists – from the outset.  This is circular. Circularity is unavoidable in questions of ultimate reality.  For me, for you, for everyone.  Your ultimate reference point is you.  You reserve for yourself the power to arbitrate all questions about reality and meaning.  But, R.C., you assume, at the outset, that a) you exist objectively – in an objective reality; b) that reality is predictable, or uniform; and c) your thoughts correspond to an objective reality outside of your thoughts.
 
Hume was a skeptic.  He took your naturalistic worldview and did what you refuse to do: followed it to its logical end.  You cannot prove a), b), or c).  Your scientific conclusions have no foundation.  Nothing you assert does.  Not if we rely on your worldview’s presuppositions.
I mean no disrespect; you’re likely much more scientifically literate than I am.  But your evasion of my challenges to you is glaring.
Here is a problem for the skeptic:  If you cannot prove you exist objectively in an objectively real universe, what is the point . . . of anything?
it does take faith, R.C., to believe in God.  To believe the Bible.  But your worldview requires irrationality (assuming with warrant a), b), and c) ) just to get your rationality off the ground.
There are answers to all your factual challenges to biblical accuracy and authority.  But there is no end to the factual challenges one will raise who wills not to believe.  And so, as you might say, there’s never any ultimate reconciliation of opposing viewpoints.
I’d be remiss for not thanking you for your time and effort.  The skeptics I have debated here have been respectful and courteous.  You have been no exception.  Thank you, R.C.
M.
 
 
 
 
 
 

2011 July 23
M. permalink

R.C.,
“But your worldview requires irrationality (assuming with warrant a), b), and c) ) just to get your rationality off the ground.”
should read:
But your worldview requires irrationality (assuming without warrant a), b), and c) ) just to get your rationality off the ground.
Sorry for any confusion.
M.

2011 September 25
Alex permalink

Lets look at the context in which the bible was written and who it was written for.  It was written for gentiles who wanted to follow the Jewish faith but could not (uncircumcised, married, women etc).  It took the foundation of that religion and created its own set of fables for religious education.  The stories are there for the student to look beyond the myth and understand the underlying meaning.
 
The best examination of this I have seen is The Book That Jesus Wrote by Barbara Thiering.

2011 September 26
M. permalink

The Bible was not written for unbelievers, but for believers.  One cannot come to the Bible and understand it on his own terms.  The spiritual things are foolishness to the carnal mind.  One must repent, and then turn in faith to Jesus Christ, whom God displayed publicly for the propitiation of sins (Romans 3).  You have to hate your sin.  You have to stop trying to fulfill God’s righteous standard by your own effort.  It is impossible to please God without faith in Him.  None are righteous.  Not even one.  To be saved, you need to realize you were evil from birth and have nothing to offer God but the filth of sin.  The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.  Who can know it?  (Jeremiah 17:9).  If you don’t believe it, consider this:  Imagine every thought you ever had could be projected onto a screen before an audience as you sat facing them.  Every single thought.  If you’re honest, you’ll be forced to admit you would run away mortified, never wishing to show your face to them again.  Imagine your closest loved ones were in that audience, seeing every uncensored thought.  Imagine their thoughts at seeing yours.

You see, as Paul Washer has said, the issue is not that you have sinned.  The issue is that you have never done anything but sin.  God will bring every thought into judgment.  If you do not fear Him and His righteous, eternal judgment, you cannot be saved.  

Jesus paid that awful price, facing God’s wrath for all sins ever committed.  Jesus alone was a worthy sacrifice, as He was and is the sinless Son of God.  Your sacrifices are unworthy.  Jesus, our sacrifice, has been appointed by God to judge all people (Acts 17).  His resurrection attests to God’s approval of His sacrifice and the fact He will judge all men in righteousness.  Please turn to the Savior and acknowledge His Lordship.

2011 November 8
Siddiqah permalink

“Humans throughout history have invented gods in their image – from Yahweh to Baal, from Zeus to Thor, from the Trinity to Allah.”
How has Allah been invented in an image of any particular person? If you have read the Qur’an you would find that Allah describes himself as unseen. So in whose image would he be in?

2011 November 8
R. C. Symes permalink

Siddiqah,
When I say that Allah is created in man’s image, I do so in the sense that the beliefs and commands supposedly said by Allah reflect the beliefs and world view of the medieval 7th and 9th century authors of the Qur’an and the sunna as recorded in the haddith. These writings are not of divine origin as proved by their plagiarism of ideas and beliefs from other religions, their many errors and contradictions, as well as evidence in the Qur’an itself that it is not the word of Allah that is dictated in every passage, but also the word of Mohammed or “angels” (e.g. the opening sura (Fatihah); sura 6.104, 114; sura 17.1; 19.64, etc.). Moreover, when early (Meccan period) verses of the Qur’an that promote tolerance are abrogated by later (Medinan) verses promoting intolerance such as “Slay the idolaters (non-believers) wherever you find them” (sura 9.5), it raises the question why did an all-wise Allah have to revise his word so many times in the Qur’an (some estimates as high as 500)? Why could he not get it right the first time? All this points to the human origins of Allah and the Qur’an, just as in the case of other religions.

2011 November 9
Siddiqah permalink

I understand that the scope of your article is dealing with the bible and I don’t mean to sway the discussion to the Qur’an but you mentioned Allah, so I have to respond.
 
How do you know that the Qur’an is not the word of God? Have you learned Arabic? Or did you just read someone’s translation? Because their is a difference. There are many types of translations of the Qur’an but the Arabic has been in tact since it was revealed. If you want to argue translation differences, then you can ask the translators why did they abridge this or chose that particular word. But you will never find any difference in the Arabic.
 
“These writings are not of divine origin as proved by their plagiaris…”
 
Actually this plagiarism of which you speak is taking the writings of another and using them verbatim and claiming them as your own. You have given examples of this in your article in regards to the bible. But you haven’t given it of the Qur’an or pointed to a source to prove your claim. Sharing similar ideas or concepts are not proof of plagiarism. If you have read the Qur’an you will find that Allah has been communicating with us since the beginning of our creation. He revealed books or messages to all his prophets, such as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Soloman, David, Moses, Jesus, etc. This has been stated in the Qur’an often, particularly that people have received these messages from God and then changed it. That in fact the Qur’an is the last book sent to us as the final and complete message, and that it will never and has never been corrupted.

2011 November 10
R. C. Symes permalink

Siddiqah,
Thank you for your response and observations. You refer to the Arabic version of the Qur’an as being intact from its revelation to Mohammed who unfortunately was illiterate. If you read about the history of the Qur’an you will find that there were several variant codices of the Qur’an in the 7th century. The Caliph Uthman tried to canonize the Medinan Codex and destroy other versions to end disputes, but there were still variations based on the use of Arabic consonants and vowels resulting in many variant readings. Not until the influence of Ibn Mujahid who died in 935 were the many versions narrowed down until eventually three systems of interpretation prevailed. For modern Islam, only the interpretations by scholars of Asim of Kufa and Nafi of Medina are widely used. Even so, there are examples of tampering with the text as can be seen in sura 78 with the addition of verses 1-5 that are out of place in both style and context, as are verses 33 and 34 that break the logical link between verses 32 and 35. This is tampering with the original Arabic text, not merely an issue of translation as you claim.
As for plagiarism, the term is not restricted to copying exact words without attribution, but also borrowing ideas and beliefs. The Qur’an’s six day creation story (sura 7:4) uses the unscientific creation story of the Bible’s book of Genesis as an inspiration (although it later implies that creation took eight days (sura 41:9-12)). A similar story of Noah and the flood is in the Koran (sura11), but the same difficulties that I described in my article above about the flood still apply to make this a myth and not an historical fact. Even the Qur’an’s story of the child Jesus making clay birds fly (sura 3:49) is copied from the non-canonical second century Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Does it make sense that an omniscient Allah who revealed his truth to previous Jewish and Christian writers, would then change his mind in the seventh century by randomly selecting and modifying his biblical stories to put in the Qur’an as the new truth? Or is it not more likely that the new revelations were the ideas of Mohammed and his followers?
I appreciate your observations. Perhaps at some other venue we could have a more detailed discussion, but unfortunately this comments section for my original article is not designed to discuss these complicated issues at length.
 
 
 
 

Comments are closed for this entry.