Is the Bible Trustworthy?

We put a lot of stock in the reliability of scripture. In fact, we base our entire belief system on it. The strongest assertion for most Christians is that each word is inspired by the Holy Spirit and preserved for all time by the same authority and power. We base this assertion on a single verse (2 Timothy 3:16) "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and training in righteousness." Wait . . . we trust the Bible because of a verse in the Bible? That sounds like circular reasoning to me. Besides, Paul would not have been referring to his own letters but the scripture of his day, the Old Testament. How can we know that the New Testament is equally inspired? The Old Testament was meticulously copied to maintain its authenticity. In the 10th Century, a group of Jewish scribes called Massoretes demonstrated the kind of care that was taken with the writings of the prophets. A group of them would copy the same book at the same time. When they were finished, they would total the number of letters in the book, then search for the middle letter. If the letters didn't match, they made a new copy.

Comparisons of the Massoretic texts with earlier Latin and Greek versions have revealed careful copying and little deviation during the thousand years from 100 BC to 900 AD. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the writings of Josephus only add to the evidence that the Old Testament books we have today are the same that Jesus and Paul studied and quoted two thousand years ago. But how were the New Testament books preserved? How were they selected for the canon? Were there other worthy candidates that could have helped us to understand Jesus from a more diverse and balanced perspective? Were the texts manipulated at all during the turbulent centuries where the church basically abused and dominated the world? I'm just starting a book called Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman to look deeper into these questions, but for now, these are my initial thoughts and research: The canon of the New Testament was not officially set until 367 AD when Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, came up with a list of twenty-seven books which was later deemed "set" by the Councils of Carthage in 397 under the authority of St. Augustine. Most of the books were natural fits because of their direct association with the apostles (though no originals existed at the time), but there was some debate over the inclusion of certain books. Some believed that Paul used the teachings of Christ to create an unorthodox hybrid between the Hebrew and Roman religions, making a sort of Jewish Mithraism. The Gnostics of the day used the teaching of Jesus and the apostles to support their own beliefs, calling Jesus the embodiment of a supreme being (his Father) who became incarnate to bring special knowledge to an earth that had been created and subjected by the corrupt designs of a malevolent god, the Jewish god of the Old Testament. There was also a lot of debate about the book of Hebrews because of the questionable nature of it's authorship. Ultimately, the issues were settled in councils, and the New Testament was published as twenty seven books. How do we know verses were not changed over time? Well, verses are changed every day. How often does a preacher read a verse of scripture then say, "What Jesus is saying is..." or "What Paul would tell our church today is..." We always extrapolate meaning based on our personal belief systems. Why would the interpreters do any different? There is always a danger in putting things into our own words. That's why I'm not a huge fan of The Message or any other translation written to make things easier for modern readers. I would much rather put my faith in the exact words of the apostles than the seeker-friendly rephrasing of some recent translations. That's just me. When I was in Bible school, my Greek teacher told our class that, in his opinion, the translation closest to the Greek texts was the New American Standard. I bought one. Mine has little underlines of common words so that I can look up the Greek meanings in the back. I like it. For me, accuracy is very important, even though none of the original documents remain (which bothers me in a way).

As I read the New Testament, I recognize that each author is a unique individual with unique spiritual experiences. These men did not write the scriptures in a trance-like state. They were writing memoirs. They were teaching. Preaching. Peter didn't always agree with Paul. Even Paul himself will differentiate his thoughts and opinions with those given to him by the Holy Spirit. But I do have something in common with both Peter and Paul. I have a relationship with Jesus. I want to learn as much as I can from them, inspired or not.

The main reason I trust the scriptures is because the Holy Spirit always leads me back to it. My next few posts will have to do with exactly how that works. I will try to explain what it is like to be led by the Spirit and to hear the subtle voice of God. I will also be eager to hear your own stories.

But for now, I'd like to hear if you believe in the authority of Scripture. If so, why.

Why I Believe in God

God spoke to me during my senior year of high school, and I would never be confident in my own logic and reasoning again. In college, he met with me in a much more dynamic way. From that day on, I would never again doubt His existence, character, or power. It changed me. I was more secure. More free. More giving. More confident. It was not the faith of my parents that convinced me of God's existence, or the testimony of scripture, or the evidence of creation, or the complexities of science. It was the undeniable contact with my creator. It is hard to prove that any of my experiences were genuine. They were, but how could I convince a skeptic? As a child, I remember being stirred in my spirit, like an astronaut staring at something beautiful and overwhelming in space. The feeling would happen at random moments and would draw me into simple worship, even when I was just riding in a car or lying in bed. From the moment of my conversion (age six) I was a fanatic. I read my Bible every night. I made my own tracts and carried those and a box of Bibles through my neighborhood. By third grade, I had the read the Bible from cover to cover three times in three different translations. By the time I graduated high school, I had read it twelve times. But all of that reading, though beneficial for facts and stories, only led to arrogance. I used knowledge like a weapon. I complained. I boasted. I argued. It wasn't until the Holy Spirit actually spoke to me that I realized I was in a relationship with a being that wanted to interact. This is basically what he said to me: You will never be an effective Christian until you learn to love me. As I continued to grow, I struggled with many of the issues I listed on the previous Skeptic Blogs, but more than anything else, I struggled with the challenge that God gave me. How could I love what I could not see or understand? I prayed constantly about it. I refused to sing or talk about God's love until He proved himself. In February of 1995, he answered my prayers in a way that left me trembling and forever changed. Ask me about it sometime. I have had many stories since, many of which will creep into these blogs, but for now, this will have to do. However, I do have one logical argument, though I hate to use it. There are smart people on every side of every argument, making truth seem unreachable. Thank God for the Holy Spirit! But if you don't have much personal experience with God, I can offer you at least one logical assurance. The law of cause and effect demands that something must pre-exist everything in order for anything to exist. Simply stated: nothing comes from nothing. It doesn’t matter how far back you go in the chain of cause and effect, there must be an ultimate cause that has no beginning. We may not understand a creature like that, but we don’t need to understand it. We just need to accept the necessity of it. If logic demands that something eternal exists, whether it is a tiny germ floating on a space crystal, or a conscious alien being, scientists should be looking for that eternal “thing” that started it all. Thankfully, we don’t have to look far. A spirit that claims to match this exact description has been revealing itself to men and women for as long as history has been recorded. Isaiah, a Jewish prophet, claimed to speak for a being that is "the high and lofty one, inhabiting eternity.” When Moses asked for God’s name, he was told, “I am,” which seems to speak of a creature in an eternal present. Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I am,” designating a contrast between a time-based creature and an eternal creature (was versus am). There is also quite a bit in scripture talking about how God’s power and character never change, another quality of someone living in an eternal present. God’s ability to speak of future events with exact times and places also suggests his ability to see the future as if it were just sitting there in front of him. God is known to challenge men with statements like, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” Decent question. My answer would be: “Uh . . . in Doc Brown’s time mach---” NOTE: This sentence would be cut short by a bolt of lightning. d In the historical record of God working with people (AKA the Bible), we see his creative power in the miraculous. There is a difference between being a manipulator of matter, and a creator of matter. Walking on water, calming storms, causing fish to obey, or healing a human body can all be replicated by any spiritual power. But to turn a boy’s lunch into a meal for 5,000 men requires creative power. To give life to a dead man requires creative power. These powers were on display in Jesus, who claimed to live as an expression of God. I am definitely intrigued by these arguments for the existence of God, but my personal experience with God is what puts everything to rest. Bottom line: I believe in him because I know him. Why do you believe?

The Power of Belief

We don't give Belief enough credit. There is nothing more potent in our lives, for good or for evil. Belief manipulates our emotions. It dictates our actions. It prompts our will. Children, spouses, friends, culture, politicians, the media, and all kinds of spiritual forces battle to influence our belief systems, but that is one thing that they can't take by force. It is yours to surrender. But what about God? Does he have the ability to manipulate belief? If so, when and why? Go to http://www.biblegateway.com/ and do a word search for Believe. If you read through the New Testament references, you'll find that Jesus teaches a lot about the consequences of believing and not believing. In John 6, when the people asked him, "What shall we do, that we may do the works of God?" Jesus told them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he has sent." Jesus did miracles, spoke of things before they happened, and prayed aloud specifically so that people would believe his message. He complained about people that refused to believe despite the evidence. Why not just make them believe? Why not manipulate their hearts? Well, that has happened. Romans 9 gives a few examples. Apparently, at times, it is necessary for God to manipulate hearts to accomplish his work. It seems reasonable to think that God would prefer not to manipulate the free belief systems of man, just like a parent would prefer a child to obey and participate freely in a family. But sometimes, for whatever reason, a kid needs to be taken by the arm and forced. Apparently, God is the only being with the ability and authority to do that. Most Calvinists believe that every conversion is a result of soul manipulation. God calls, men must respond. Most Arminians believe that God calls, and they can decide whether or not to pick up the phone based on the evidence provided and whether or not they had enough sleep the night before. Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Skeptic Wrap-up

Have I mentioned how much I'm enjoying this? I hope that you continue to visit in the months to come as we move away from questions and start working toward answers. The plan is to have a weekly topic, set up a poll, and write three or four related posts. I will try to generate discussions that anyone with an interest in spiritual things can join. If you think I'm wandering off the path of orthodoxy, let me know. But be ready to back it up. And please, try to avoid Christianese.

The poll for this past week shows that there is approximately a 2-to-1 ratio of people that feel nervous or terrified in evangelism versus those who are okay or confident. Why do we feel so nervous? If I discovered a cure for cancer, would I feel nervous divulging that information? If I was single and getting engaged to a world-famous celebrity, would I feel nervous about advertising that union? We should feel eager and excited.

So why are we so nervous? Here are a few possibilities:

We believe the gospel, but we don't understand it well enough to share, afraid that a skeptic will ask a question that we can't answer.

We are muzzled by our own sinfulness, and do not feel qualified to share.

We don't want to impose our beliefs on others, recognizing that everyone has the freedom to live by their own convictions.

We hate the anxiety associated with those awkward conversations.

We are so saturated by Christian culture, we don't even talk to non-believers.

It is important to widen our view of Christianity so that we can approach issues from all different angles, seeing the concepts so clearly that our explanations are completely comprehensive. I feel that the gospel message has been packaged into a neat little formula that gives humanity a limited view of the larger picture, like trying to look at the Grand Canyon through binoculars.

I feel that, with such limited understanding, we settle into our God marriages in a way that is anything but world changing. We attend church every Sunday, pan for devotional nuggets every morning, pray when something bad happens, and maybe attend a mid-week Bible study. It seems like Christians tend to tread water until they die, waiting for the afterlife where things are really going to get interesting. If that's true, this whole Earth Experiment seems dumb. Why not just create humans in heaven and hell and forget all the drama in between?

In Hebrews 6:1, Paul encourages his people to leave the elementary teachings about Christ and press on toward maturity. I feel like the elementary principles are all we know. If we knew what maturity looked like, we might try harder to get there. I think most Christians walk around with an attitude that says, "We'll never really understand anything until we get to heaven, so we might as well just focus on sin management until then."

Not only is this unbiblical, it mocks Christ's sacrifice. What if I had a baby that never grew up? It just drank milk and cried all the time. Sometimes it would spit up, but that's okay. Daddy loves to clean it up, right? Abba? Abba? Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Spiritual maturity brings confidence, power, and wisdom. The desire for sin fades naturally, just like the appetite of a child changes over time. We get to know God in ways that are more familiar, but also more challenging. If you're tired of feeling spiritually weak and ignorant, it's time to move forward. It's time to start growing up.

Skeptic #4

Statement #4: To experience God's love and plan, we must individually believe and accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. There is no controversy in this statement, just a moment of truth. Will you decide, based on the urging of your mind and heart, to make this eternal commitment? Like Magnus VonHayden mentioned in one of his comments, this is a contract, like a marriage. For many, even those who are moved by their own sin and the offering of divine forgiveness, there are still a few questions to be answered before they pick up their soul pens. To stay with my skeptical stance, I am purposefully ignoring the work of the Holy Spirit in evangelism, though most of you would probably see this as ignoring the sugar in a batch of sugar cookies. What about the billions of people who never get the chance to hear the terms of the contract? I'm talking about children, the mentally ill, people in third world countries, and so on. Are they subject to the penalties of rejection? In other words, do they have to burn in hell for an eternity for their ignorance? What about all of the violence and injustice that God commanded Israel to do in the Old Testament? If I am to believe that God is loving and just, I must have a resolution to these concerns. Christian history is filled with stories of arrogant men fighting over doctrine and leadership resulting in cheating, stealing, lying, abuse, and murder on a massive scale. If the gospel does not have the power to change its people for the better, why should I sign up? There are many more reasons. If you want them, just go to exchristian (dot) net and spend some time getting into the heads of some former church goers. The testimonies may frustrate you or make you angry, you also might get a little depressed, but I hope, at the same time, it challenges you. What can you say to defend the questions of skeptics? Is your faith strong enough to stand on its own two feet, or do you prop it up against the company of like-minded individuals? I'll save my personal feelings for the final post of this week, but for now, I would be interested in hearing yours.