Can I Trust the Bible?

       This is a great question and should be aimed at every credible story that attempts to answer the basic questions about life: (1) “Where did we come from?” (origins), (2) “Why are we here?” (purpose), and (3) “Where are we going?” (destiny).  I wish that question would also be aimed at the many sources promoting the French-Enlightenment-based “evolution” story that has become assumed orthodoxy amongst Western intellectuals.  However, our focus here is not to critique evolutionary mythology, but to discuss the issue of whether or not the Bible is a trustworthy guide to understanding and living life.  In spite of claims of neutral objectivity (which are rarely true), I will admit my bias at the beginning.  I grew up a theistic evolutionist, but in my 20’s I was challenged to investigate the Bible and its claims.  From that challenge, I honestly investigated (for the first time) my evolutionary beliefs as well as the Bible and its evidences.  As a result, I became a conservative Christian and concluded that you can trust the Bible.  In the presentation that follows, I will summarize my findings and point you to some works that I think will be good resources for further study.

The Essential Questions

        Evaluating worldviews and life-guide sources entails several basic questions.  There are actually only a couple of possible sources upon which a person could build their life.  First there is your self - trust your own intelligence, wisdom, and experience as a sufficient guide for life.  Second, you could trust your friends (with roughly similar knowledge, wisdom, and experience to yourself).  Third, you could trust some humanly developed philosophical/religions system (the only real difference between philosophy and religion is over who gets to occupy the “ultimate authority” seat at the top of the system.  Fourth, you could follow the revealed information given by the God that created the universe and this is how I view the Judeo-Christian Biblical system.  The philosophical and religious option quickly divides into two major groups upon the ultimate major question - What is the ultimate reality: eternal God/Being or eternal matter?  Was the universe created and designed or did matter + natural processes + time & chance just happen to accidentally fall into its current configuration?  Upon this question, people divide into theistic and atheistic worldviews, as the graphic (right) portrays.

        Atheists will champion “evolution” as their ultimate origins story (that the universe arose from an eternal “something”), because they don’t have room for a Creator anywhere and the only option left is to place their faith in “matter + natural processes + time” as sufficient to explain the existing universe and life.  In my early 20’s, I came to the point that I could no longer muster enough faith to believe in this matter/natural process/time & chance scenario.

       Theists have a bigger job ahead of them because they need to sort through a lot of options: (1) the many spirits of animism, polytheism or (2) several monotheistic systems.  After examining all of the major options, I concluded that the Judeo-Christian/Bible and God system came out clearly best in my opinion.  Let's move on to the major questions that should be asked about the Judeo-Christian Biblical scenario.

The Judeo-Christian Biblical System - Two Views

       Because the Judeo-Christian system is guided by a set of writings called the Bible, there are some specific questions that need to be addressed about this collection of documents.  Before we answer these questions, I want to identify two types of answers that are offered to these questions.  The Bible and its worldview has been under heavy intellectual assault in Western civilization for 200 years.  Following the Great Reformation (1520-1648), a strong secular movement developed in France called The Enlightenment (1689-1789).  It was extremely opposed to both the French monarchy and the Roman Catholic Church.  Rejecting the Catholic Church as a powerful political institution with a number of superstitious beliefs (which was true), they also rejected the entire Judeo-Christian heritage and returned to Greek materialism and naturalism as their foundational assumptions.

       During the Modern Era (1800-1963), all knowledge in Western Academic settings was retooled upon Enlightenment presuppositions that only the natural realm was real, all things inherently progress, and human reason (assuming the first two presuppositions to be true) was the only route to knowledge - in effect, “evolutionary development.”  Hence, virtually all of Western education was taken over by this paradigm, even theology.  Thus, skeptical philosopher and theologians, assuming that everything “evolved” from simple/primitive origins towards complex/advanced final states, began assaulting the traditional view of the origin/nature of the Bible as well as the traditional and straightforward story presented in the Bible.  On the basis of hostile literary and historical “criticism,” the European proponents of this approach asserted several key notions that (if assumed to be true) demolished the validity of the Bible in the minds of many in Western Civilization.  First, it was asserted that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch because nobody could write in 1500 B.C., thus all of the Old Testament books were declared to be “later” productions of unknown priestly editors weaving myths and legends together.  Second, most of the historical elements of the Bible were assumed to be fraudulent, Israel's history was reinterpreted in terms of natural and social evolution from animism, to polytheism, and finally to monotheism.  Third, since it was assumed that there was no supernatural realm or beings, then all “supernatural interventions” into the natural order (miracles, divine revelation, accurate predictive prophecy, etc.) were asserted to be “impossible” and all were dismissed with naturalistic explanations or rejected as superstitious stories added later for ignorant “pre-scientific” people.  Much of this was never proven or supported by any solid evidence about the ancient world, it was merely believed and confidently asserted by intellectuals that had fully embraced (by faith) the materialistic and naturalistic presuppositions of the Enlightenment.  These notions were embraced as "fact" in western civilization and few confident evolutionists have bothered to check on how the evidence looked as it has accumulated since 1875.  Actually, the scientific, historical, and archaeological evidence has tended to support the traditional Biblical story and raise questions about the validity of many evolutionary assumptions - this is why evolutionists in the later 20^th/early 21^st century era are so adamant about keeping all discussion of the Bible, creationism, Intelligent Design, criticism of the Enlightenment viewpoint from happening in the public schools.  Only by maintaining a monopoly can they stay in power in educational circles - open discussion of the facts will further damage the status of the evolutionary establishment.  I will answer the following questions by advocating a restored confidence in the validity of the Bible.

       The "Historical Criticism" of the Bible tried to "late-date" virtually every book of the Bible - in effect, disconnect Moses, Joshua, the Judges, Prophets, and Apostles from the books they were traditionally believed to have written.  This opened the way for claiming that all of the books of Scripture were written long after the facts and, thus, are little more than myths, legends, and fanciful superstitious stories concocted for simple-minded people.

       Time and archaeology have demonstrated that much in Genesis is in close cultural and historical parallel with the archaeology and cultural practices of the ancient Middle East.  As it turns out, archaeology has demonstrated that literature was well advanced in the Middle East long before Moses’ time, so his authorship of Genesis through Deuteronomy is very possible.  While educated to hold the higher-critical Enlightenment view of the formation of the New Testament, Bishop John A.T. Robinson was challenged to investigate the authorship of the Gospel of John and was overwhelmed by the evidence he found and decided to reconsider the origin of all New Testament writings,

But, as "little more than a theological joke," he decided to investigate the arguments on the dating of all the books, a field largely dormant since the turn of the century.  The results stunned him.  Owing to scholarly "sloth," the "tyranny of unexamined assumptions" and "almost willful blindness" by previous authors, he decided, much of the past reasoning was untenable.^[1]

Robinson concluded that all of the New Testament books were written by the traditional authors before the end of the first century A.D. and challenged his colleagues to prove him wrong.  The general tendency of the evidence that has accumulated since the Enlightenment view was adopted has been to support the traditional view and raise questions about the critical approach.

       Thus, we have solid reasons to believe that the traditional view of the origin and authorship of the Bible books was rejected by intellectuals for philosophical reasons rather than because of “evidence.”  I am convinced that the Bible books (or the source material used by later compilers) were written by people who were inspired by God (2Timothy 3:14-17; 2Peter 1:19-21) and were either participants in the action or had access to accurate information on what happened not far removed time-wise from the events.

       Moses was the Lawgiver chosen by God and Joshua was divinely chosen to follow him, thus the material in the Hexateuch (Genesis - Joshua) was written by men who knew well what happened.  The Prophet Samuel probably collected most of the material we have in Judges and the bulk of the two books of Samuel.  Prophets made records during the reigns of each of the Israelite kings and this material was probably collected and edited by Ezra.  In summary, the Old Testament written record is inspired because it was made largely by the prophets who God called and worked through.  The Gospels were written by two Apostles (Matthew and John) who were eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry, and two men closely associated with other Apostles - Mark wrote Peter's material for the church in Rome and Luke wrote Paul's material plus his own investigations.  Luke participated in portions of Paul's ministry and produced the book of Acts.  The Apostle Paul wrote a number of letters to congregations and individuals, as did the Apostles Peter and John.  James and Jude were half-brothers of Jesus and leaders in the early Jewish church.  Actually, the writers of the Bible books were much closer to the events than the 19^th century skeptics that arrogantly claimed to know more about what "really" happened.

       Studies concerning the appearance and transmission of Bible books reveal that the Jews had a pretty well recognized body of writings by 200 B.C. and these 22-24 scrolls (depending on how books were combined on the scrolls) are the 39 writings we call the "Old Testament."  They were divided into three sections - “the Law, Prophets, and Writings.”  Archaeology has generally supported the material from Genesis onward as being very much in keeping with the historical setting portrayed, rather than something written long afterward by people unfamiliar with customs/cultures of the distant past.  Working from the evolutionary paradigm, the European “Higher Critics” assumed that ancient people were inherently less intelligent and more superstitious than “enlightened” (and self-impressed, arrogant) modern intellectuals.  However, a good deal of evidence has accumulated that indicates that ancient people were much more intelligent and technology/high culture capable than the Enlightenment mindset has given them credit for.

       As for the New Testament writings, the original documents are separated from the oldest existing fragment by less than 50 years.  Not only are there many Greek copies of the New Testament, but it was not long before the New Testament writings were being translated into other languages and were being quoted by the early Church Fathers in their writings.  We have every reason to believe that the writings of the New Testament came from the era of the Apostles (30-100 A.D.).

       The collection of “inspired documents” is called the “canonization” process.  By the first century, the 39 writings of the New Testament were solidly identified as inspired by the Jewish community.  Although scattered around the Mediterranean Sea, Christian congregations appear to have been exchanging Paul's letters early (Colossians 4:16), probably making copies before sending them on.  Peter noted the existence of a recognized body of Paul's writings in his time (2Peter 3:15-16).  There are several "canons" or unofficial lists of New Testament writings from before 325 A.D. - remember that Roman persecution kept the church from openly dealing with some of these matters until after 313 A.D.  Several Council meetings after 325 A.D. met and “officially” identified the list of 27 New Testament documents that we know.  However, these councils did not "create" the list of official NT Scripture as much as verify their authenticity and publicize the list that the church themselves had been accumulating from the time the letters first appeared and began circulating.  I believe that we can be very confident that the 27 NT writings that we know are authentic and are the best collection possible as to books that should be included in the canon of Scripture.

       Did the early church miss any other Apostolic writings?  It is possible that Paul wrote more letters to the Corinthians church than we now have, for he mentions something he had previously written to them in what we know as his first letter to them (1Corinthians 5:9,11).  There is also some question about what the letter was coming to Colossae from Laodicea (Colossians 4:16), although it may have been the Ephesian letter.  However, there isn’t much reason to think that anything significant was missed in assembling the New Testament Canon.

       The New Testament writers knew and quoted from many of the 39 Old Testament writings, which Jesus seemed comfortable with as accurate texts of those books.  The oldest Hebrew OT manuscripts available prior to the 1940's went back to the 9^th century A.D., leaving almost a thousand years from that time back to the time of Jesus for questions to arise about the accuracy of the texts.  However, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1947-9) jumped that 900 year gap and revealed what the text of the Old Testament books (all except Esther) was like around the time of Jesus - the Massoretic copyists had done a marvelous job of copying the Old Testament books and passing it on accurately.  The many Greek manuscripts, versions, and quotations in the Church Fathers also allows textual critics to be sure that the New Testament we read now is, essentially the same as the churches read that first received those letters.  Yes, the Bible books have been accurately passed down over the centuries.

       Although the Bible books claim to be inspired material from God, false writings could also make that claim.  However, when you consider that these 66 books, written by 40 different men, over a 1500 year span all fit together to tell a very credible story, you begin to wonder how this could happen unless an eternal heavenly editor was overseeing the process.  Fulfilled prophecy also points toward an ultimate author who could reveal things to prophets and have them record these detailed events many years before they happened.  Finally, both the Old and New Testament writings tell the painful and embarrassing truth about the very people discussed in them - if this was "false history" written long after the fact to glorify the Jewish people, the contents are hardly what such a project would have included.  The weaknesses and failures of the Jews and their heroes are clearly described for all to see - these are real people who fail to be as great as false histories would have portrayed them to be.  The weaknesses and less than flattering qualities and actions of Jesus’ Apostles are also included for all to see.  The only one who really demonstrates character and integrity in the Bible is God.  These writings are not dusty old, archaic material, out of touch with modern life.  Instead they are "living oracles" (Acts 7:38) that are as capable of cutting deep into our inner being (Hebrews 4:12-13) now as when they were written.  Aside from the historical marks that tie them to a certain situation, 20^th century man continues to find powerful wisdom and convicting truths there.  My experience with other religious literature and the Bible sends me away with feelings that the Bible is a very different kind of a book - through it God speaks to us, today!

       The material in Genesis 1-11 is very much in harmony with numerous older stories from the ancient Middle East - supernatural origin of the universe, people lived longer lives, then a massive flood destroyed most life.  Critics assume that this similarity is based on later Jewish borrowing of pagan legends, but it could also be rooted in commonly remembered historical events (lack of cultural/theological similarity to Mesopotamian stories argues against borrowed legend).  Where Old Testament material can be compared with secular records, historical events, cultural elements, and people are either mentioned or very much in harmony with what was going on.  The same is true concerning New Testament characters and historical elements.  Yes, the Bible is historically reliable.

       Dr. Werner Keller, a noted scientific journalist from Germany, has written and spoken out on the historical validity of the Bible,

These breathtaking discoveries, whose significance it is impossible to grasp all at once, make it necessary for us to revise our views about the Bible.  Many events which previously passed for “pious tales” must now be judged to be historical. . . .In view of the overwhelming mass of authentic and well-attested evidence now available, as I thought of the skeptical criticism which from the eighteenth century onwards would fain have demolished the Bible altogether, there kept hammering on my brain this one sentence: “The Bible is right after all?”^[2]

In a similar manner, Dr. Clifford Wilson, a former director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology, has said,

Archaeology has in fact come down on the side of the Bible, even from the early chapters of Genesis. . . For the unbiased research student the evidence is compelling . . . The evidence has led me increasingly to accept the literal nature of the Bible record as authentic history.^[3]

       Although the evolutionary establishment puts out a good deal of propaganda about the “overwhelming evidence for evolution” and how “unscientific/no evidence/irrational/etc.” the Biblical view is, the facts are somewhat different.  Evolutionists assert that life arose by chance in a warm little pond and that all major groups of life gradually arose from earlier ones, but life arising from non-life by naturalistic means has never been observed or reproduced under laboratory conditions nor is there any evidence in the fossil record that any major group of lifeforms gradually arose from any other major group.  On the other hand, the scientific evidence indicates that life only comes from prior life and that many major groups of lifeforms arose early and simultaneously (Cambrian Explosion).  The Bible teaches that life on earth was created in a number of original “major kinds” at about the same time by the living God/Creator (Genesis 1-2).  In terms of major issues, the origin story in Genesis 1-2 is more in accord with the scientific evidence than the Darwinian story built upon materialistic/naturalistic philosophy.  The evidence suggests that most of the life on earth was wiped out catastrophically and many lifeforms were suddenly killed, buried, and preserved in the earth’s sedimentary rocks, which seems more reasonable in terms of a catastrophic worldwide flood (Genesis 6-8) than the traditional evolutionary doctrine of geological uniformitarianism (no major catastrophic changes).

       The sins, human weaknesses, personal and social problems recorded in the earliest books of the Bible (Genesis through Deuteronomy) remain common to mankind right up to the present day.  The temptation and sin model of Genesis 2-3 corresponds closely with the experiences of humanity to the present.  The issues discussed in Old Testament wisdom literature (Proverbs & Ecclesiastes) continues to correspond closely to human experience and problems to the present.  The recognition of the inequities of life are accurately portrayed in the book of Job, Ecclesiastes 8:11-14, Matthew 5:45, John 9:1-3, and Hebrews 11.  The moral laws, ethical teachings, and solutions to human problems offered in the Bible are very practical and functional.

       It is my studied opinion that modern Western society has taken a serious wrong turn in rejecting the Biblical worldview in the public sector and the signs of resulting social and cultural decay become increasingly obvious with every year.  Instead, modern “wisdom” holds that there are no absolute truths/moral values, no ultimate accountability, no personal responsibility, and that Biblical Christianity is the major obstacle to progress.  Evolutionary “progress” ideologically blinds its adherents to the reality of the increasing loss of family structure, moral standards, intellectual and scientific integrity, free speech and truly open inquiry, and the general cultural strength of Western Civilization.  In essence, the switch from Judeo-Christian theism to materialistic and naturalistic philosophy is producing the same decline in civilization that occurred in ancient Greece and Rome as the secular-minded intellectuals in each of those civilizations moved their societies from theism to atheism.

For further Reading:

    See my other web articles on “How We Got the Bible” & “The Bible and History”

Bruce, F. F.  The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?  Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1960.  Fifth

     Revised Edition.

Harris, R. Laird.  Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr.  The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant?  Downers Grove: InterVarsity

     Press, 2001.  ISBN: 0-8308-1975-4

Kitchen, K. A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament.  Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,

     2003.  BS1180.K56 / ISBN 0-8028-4960-1

McDowell, Josh.  The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict.  Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999.  BS480,M384

     1999 / ISBN 0-7852-4219-8

von Campenhausen, Hans.  The Formation of the Christian Bible.  Translated by J. A. Baker.  Philadelphia:

     Fortress Press, 1972.  ISBN 0-8006-1263-9

 -----------------------------------------------------------

Charles E. McCoy

December 19, 2005

---

Notes:

---

[1] “The New Testament Dating Game,” Time, March 21, 1977.  p. 95.

[2] Werner Keller, The Bible As History, 2nd Revised ed. (New York: William Morrow, 1981), pp. 23,24.

[3] Reported in Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 15 No. 3 citing New Life (April 8, 1993), p. 4.

---

A Ministry of Severn Christian Church (Severn, Maryland)

Unless otherwise noted, all material produced by Charles E. McCoy

All Scripture citations/quotations from the New American Standard Bible

To send a question to Chuck: chuck@severnchristian.org

---

---