Response: Common views on Scripture

Recently, I came across an old discourse with a friend of mine concerning the nature of Scripture which took place several months ago. The viewpoints of my friend are so common to the average post-modern man, that I thought I would post this conversation here, so that my responses to these viewpoints could be discussed. Feel free to ask for elaboration, or simply comment, on any these responses.

#1: "In reality I cannot see where any religion can believe that their scriptures are all accurate, foolproof and complete. The Scriptures aren't supposed to be accurate, foolproof or complete."


Response: At the risk of sounding argumentative (I hope you don't take it as such but...), yes they are supposed to be all three, according to what it says of its own self. Now whether you believe that it is all three accurate, foolproof, and complete is entirely seperate matter, but it most certainly claims that the Scriptures are just that. It's a doctrine called the "Inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture."

The 16th Century Protestant Reformer Martin Luther's anthem phrase was Soli Deo, Soli Scriptura, Soli Fidelis (God Alone, Scripture Alone, Faith Alone). Again, I don't mean to say that you must believe this is true, but merely that this is what Scripture says of itself and what those who followed the teachings of Christ (Christians) have believed from the start (as well as Jews for that matter).


#2: "They [the Scriptures] are written by men (and by men I mean mankind, for those liking to be politically correct!) and so are limited to man's understanding at the time of writing."


Response: What Scripture claims of itself, is that it is "God-breathed," - or in other words, God worked through the men who wrote the Bible to communicate exactly and perfectly what he wanted to communicate. It makes logical sense that this should be done this way as well. I say this, because if you think that a God created us, and created man to be his "special creation" and you believe that God desires that man should maintain a relationship with Him, then it only follows that God would give us his Word in a way that it was NOT corrupted by man. If we believe that God seeks to have a relationship personally with us, He must reveal himself to us. In so doing, we are given Scripture, infallible, and inerrant.

That's the simple explanation anyway.

#3: "Each writing fulfills a need at the time of writing, different times have different needs and so the writings can be contradictory."


Response: That's actually one of the wonders of Scripture. It never contradicts itself once throughout it's entirety. I actually use this point to convey my above thought, about where Scripture comes from. The fact that it ISN'T contradictory, DESPITE having been written over a period of thousands of years, and by over 50 different men, from different walks and stations of life, under different circumstances, it is ABSOLUTELY PHENOMENAL that it never contradicts itself. Throughout, from Genesis to Revelation, the Character of God, the Character of Man, and the story of God redeeming man despite our fallen state, is complete, and perfect, from beginning to end. It's mind-boggling. The only explanation, to me, is that it MUST be truly from God, rather than Man. But that's just my conclusion on the matter.


#4: "The stories have been passed through many generations by word of mouth before actually being written down, each generation presents their own interpretation on the story."


This point is only even possibly true, for the first couple books in the Bible, and particularly Genesis. All the other books are written right in the thick of the story, except where noted in the text. At very least they are written a few years after, but always by the eyewitnesses to the events described (with the exception of the Gospel of Luke, which Luke himself notes at the beginning of the book. He writes that he has compiled his facts from eyewitnesses and so forth).

The only books that were written considerably after the fact are the history books of 1st and 2nd Kings, and 1st and 2nd Chronicles, which gives an exhaustive history of the ancient history of the Nation of Israel. But of course, this is exactly the point of those books.. to give a history.. after the fact.

All the others, are very much contemporary of their events.

#5: "The scriptures are translated from their original languages (unless we are fortunate enough to be able to understand the language in question), each translation adds another layer of interpretation into the stories."


Response: We ARE indeed fortunate enough to be able to understand the entire thing in the original languages. The Old Testament books were written in Hebrew, and the New Testament books were written in Greek. We have full copies of each in the original languages, and I can attest personally that the modern translations of all the books of the Bible are very very accurate and easily understood if read in the English translations. Obviously to read and understand the texts in the original languages adds understanding to some of the details, but it does not change the overall meaning and message of the translations.

The biggest hindrance to interpretation, that I have seen, is not difficulties in switching from the Greek and Hebrew, but instead in the lack of knowledge of Scripture as a whole, by the reader. And when you combine this lack of knowledge, with a lack of knowledge concerning the culture, people, and traditions of the original writers and audience of the books, this is where the biggest errors in interpretation are to be found.

I hope I don't sound too argumentative, because it truly is not my intention to be. I simply wanted to clarify some things of which you may not have been aware.

I would love to go into this conversation a little deeper with someone who has the time and the patience to examine the subject honestly and openly. So by all means, question my conclusions and responses.

Setting the Record Staight: The Creation Museum

I’ve been following this project for well over a year now, and I’m very excited about the importance and potential of this facility which finally opened this past Memorial Day weekend, just outside Cincinnati, OH. This is a first-class presentation of history and science that is biblically-based, and it has the evolutionists very concerned. Check out the website for the museum below, but above all, please pray for the impact that this will make across the country, and even around the world. The international media has been taking an interest in this museum, and so should you! This truly is an amazing monument to the Glory of God.

Creation Museum Website

“The Creation Museum, opening May 28, 2007, presents a "walk through history." Designed by a former Universal Studios exhibit director, this state-of-the-art 60,000 square foot museum brings the pages of the Bible to life. A fully engaging, sensory experience for guests. Murals and realistic scenery, computer-generated visual effects, over fifty exotic animals, life-sized people and dinosaur animatronics, and a special-effects theater complete with misty sea breezes and rumbling seats. These are just some of the impressive exhibits that everyone in your family will enjoy.”

Here are some links to some of the media coverage the museum was getting before it even opened:

Newsweek
Fox News
BBC
New York Times

“It’s 60,000 square feet of exhibits are often stunningly designed” (May 24) “[T]here are some extraordinary fossils at the new Creation Museum” (June 4)
—The New York Times’ culture/museum critic Ed Rothstein in two different articles

The museum's director is Australian Ken Ham, who founded the apologetics ministry "Answers in Genesis" in the 1970's.

Faith of the Founders

We're constantly in search of some big name to agree with us. Whether you're a Christian, an atheist, a deist, a soccer fan, a libertarian, a size 12 shoe wearer, or whatever other card you've decided to carry (by choice or otherwise), it's always nice to be able to say "Hey, you know such and such carries the same card as me?" There's nothing wrong with that necessarily.

The real problem starts when the next step in the logical equation is "... and therefore I'm right." That's called a "logical fallacy." In other words, when someone says "James Madison was a Christian, and he was our 4th President," and they're implying that you should be a Christian too, (or maybe they're trying to imply that America is therefore a Christian nation) this is plainly illogical and is a prime example of the sort of nonsensical arguments that should be combated against by the thinking man.

That being said, we can examine what various Founding Fathers have written about their various faiths and religious beliefs. But let's keep in mind that what they thought about matters of faith and religion (two different things, by the way) are not to be used as a basis for proving a point. Some of the Founders have left a great deal in writing about their beliefs concerning God, but most of them write primarily about how religion and matters of state should, in their own personal opinions, coincide or be separated. There are two things that must not be confused when reading the writings of the Fathers. First, we must recognize when they are writing concerning the relationship between organized religion and the state, and second we must not confuse that with their own personal faiths. The two subjects could be, and still are, two very different issues.

Faith, for starters, is not the same as organized religion. What a person holds as his or her personal belief system, is not to be confused with what one does in a congregational setting. Neither is it to be confused with one's belief about what should be enforced on others by law or statutes.

In the case of James Madison, in particular, there is a plethora of evidence that the man quite clearly and emphatically felt that matters of organized religion should be left very much apart from anything to do with government. Was he right? That's a matter for a different discussion. Personally I believe he absolutely was right, but that's just my opinion.

But what of the man's personal beliefs? What do we know? What don't we know? What we do know is that there has been a great deal of speculation from people claiming affiliation with Mr. Madison's beliefs (for whatever reason). One thing that I feel we can say for sure, is that we're not entirely sure about James Madison's personal beliefs.

Here are the facts though. James Madison studied theology at Princeton University and was apparently their first graduate student there, at what was then the College of New Jersey (now Princeton). He was considering going into the ministry himself at that time. During his Presidency, he attended St. John's Episcopal Church . That is about the end of any solid evidence for Madison ever being a true convert. The rest is pure conjecture and opinion.

My personal opinion on the matter is that he was a Christian, based on the tone and wording of his arguments for the separation of church and State. Specifically, his "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" and the way he argues from certain positions, logically against the necessity for government to endorse any particular sect of Christianity, makes me believe he was arguing from a position of conviction of the Truth of Christianity, without the need of any sort of government backing. I will certainly not be at all dogmatic on this opinion, as no one else should be either. There simply is not enough evidence on the matter to make the call one way or another.

So was James Madison a Christian? I personally think he was. But the bottom line is, it just doesn't matter. Madison wholeheartedly believed that religious establishments of any kind should play absolutely no part in government, and I think he was right. America is not a nation founded on Christian principles. It is a nation founded on individual liberty, and freedom from Tyranny of all kinds, including Religious Tyranny. These ideals trumped whatever personal faith the Founding Fathers themselves had as individuals, when it came to putting together a nation.

On the "Jesus Tomb"

I thought it would be worth taking a sidetrack from Scriptural analysis, to bring you the comments from a very good analysis of the recent "documentary" on the so-called "Jesus Tomb" that aired on the Discovery Channel a few days ago. Here is the direct link to the full comments from Dr. Andreas Kostenberger.

Here is a portion of his "score-card" of the documentary.

As did many of you, I watched the Discovery Channel special on the Jesus tomb and the discussion moderated by Ted Koppel afterwards. Before I give you my score card, allow me to make a few comments.

(1) In my view it is very unfortunate that Simcha was not more restrained in jumping to sensationalist conclusions in his film. Since by his own acknowledgment he is neither a scholar nor an archeologist, he should have refrained from pushing his own preferred conclusion as hard as he did. Hiring a few consultants like James Tabor who are sympathetic to his views is not enough. Contrary to Simcha’s claims, he is not merely “reporting the news.” He is seeking to propagate the unsubstantiated theory that the “Jesus tomb” contained the remains of Jesus and his family.

(2) Having said this, I welcome the publication of the data associated with this find (though I wish the discussion could have been put on a more proper scholarly footing from the beginning). In my view, the find, rather than disproving Jesus’ resurrection and the truth of Christianity, actually lends additional credence to the biblical record. For example, it suggests that the names in the Gospels are eminently well attested for the biblical period.

(3) Most likely, the tomb contains the remains of a Jesus son of Joseph (or of a different name if “Jesus” turns out to be the wrong reading); his son Jude or Judah; and several other family members including two Marys and a Matthew. All these were very common first-century Jewish names. I actually believe the presence of the inscription “Judah son of Jesus” is a strong argument against this being Jesus’ family tomb, since it is highly unlikely that Jesus of Nazareth had a son (the movie’s attempt at construing a conspiracy/suppression theory notwithstanding).

(4) The movie’s attempt to link Jude with the “Beloved Disciple” of John’s Gospel is certainly creative, and should be added to the list of conjectures of late that the “Beloved Disciple” is Thomas, Lazarus, or Mary Magdalene, but it is completely ludicrous. John 19:26 says explicitly that Jesus said to his mother - not Mary Magdalene! - “Woman, look, your son.”

(5) I completely agree with Darrell Bock’s comments on the show following the Discovery Channel special that the Christian belief in Jesus’ bodily resurrection excludes the notion that Jesus’ bones may have been in the ossuary. This is why, contrary to the Roman Catholic representative on the panel, it makes all the difference in the world whether or not this is “Jesus’ family tomb.” James Tabor and Simcha simply do not understand the biblical teaching (in line with Jewish beliefs, as Bock correctly noted) and the early Christian beliefs regarding Jesus’ bodily resurrection.

Enough said.

Here is my score card:

Possible gaps in logic:

On what basis is the assertion made that the dead person named “Mariamene” in one of the ossuaries is to be identified with Mary Magdalene? A 14TH-CENTURY MS. OF THE ACTS OF PHILIP

On what basis is the further assertion made that Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ wife? DNA EVIDENCE INDICATING THEY DID NOT SHARE THE SAME MOTHER

Does the special refer to the possibility that “Mariamene e Mara,” rather than “Mary, known as the master,” may rather mean “Mary and Martha” (with “Mara” being a short form of “Martha”; see Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p. 89)? NO REFERENCE MADE

Is acknowledgment made of other possible explanations why the “Jesus” and “Mariamene” do not appear to share the same DNA, such as that this woman may have been the wife of a brother of that “Jesus” or a non-relative placed in that tomb for some other reason? NO ACKNOWLEDGMENT MADE

Unsubstantiated assertions and lacking explanations:

Is any explanation offered why Jesus’ family tomb would have been in Jerusalem? NO

Is any explanation offered why there is no ancient evidence for such a tomb? NO

Is any explanation offered why, if there was such a tomb, no enemy of Christianity in the first or second century A.D. pointed to this tomb as evidence that the Christian claim of Jesus’ resurrection was false? NO

Is any explanation offered why scores of Christians died a martyr’s death for what they knew was a fraudulent claim? NO

Possible overstatement and misuse of sciences:

Is the impression given that statistics “prove” that the “Jesus” whose bones may have been placed in the ossuary was the Jesus of Christianity? [Remember, statistics hardly ever “prove” anything.] REPEATEDLY, STATISTICAL EVIDENCE IS CALLED “COMPELLING”

Is acknowledgment made that over 1,000 men named Jesus, son of Joseph lived in first-century Palestine? That many men named Jesus had parents named Joseph and Mary, both being exceedingly common names? And so on. YES, IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT 1 IN 4 WOMEN WERE NAMED MARY

Is DNA testing used to dazzle the viewing audience, as a sort of deus ex machina, to cover up an otherwise weak case? DNA EVIDENCE IS OVERPLAYED

Is reference made to the fact that we do not in the first place have any undisputed DNA from Jesus or anyone in his family? NO

Other unstated possible problems:

Is acknowledgment made that the inscription “Jesus” is itself uncertain? Rahmani’s Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries, posted on the Discovery Channel website, says that “The first name, preceded by a large cross-mark, is difficult to read, as the incisions are clumsily carved and badly scratched.” Is this mentioned in the program? NOT MENTIONED

Does the special concede that the only possible source identifying “Mariamene” with Mary Magdalene is the Acts of Philip (available to us in a 14^th-century text), which seems to associate this “Mariamene” with Martha and thus identify her, not with Mary Magdalene, but with Mary of Bethany? NO REFERENCE MADE TO MARIAMENE BEING CONNECTED WITH MARTHA IN THE ACTS OF PHILIP

Look also for possible bias in “reporting,” as the makers of the “documentary” claim, “news” or “facts.” The question here is, “Do reporters of news, like members of a jury, have a responsibility to exercise caution in connecting the dots of a given case, and do they have an obligation to acknowledge other possible explanations beside their own?” I CONCLUDE THAT THE DOCUMENTARY WAS HIGHLY TENDENTIOUS AND BIASED; IT CONTAINED NUMEROUS GAPS IN LOGIC, UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTIONS, AND FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS OF THE EVIDENCE

Understanding the Misunderstood

Most of the discussion that we'll be focusing on as time goes on, will be based on difficult passages of Scripture. As this is the case, it will be important that we're all working off the same page, so to speak.

Before we can begin to discuss arguments from the texts of Scripture, we must first understand what Scripture is, and what Scripture is not. We must come to a definition of terms, before delving into what Scripture says. If we were to neglect this starting point, it would not be long before misunderstandings surfaced due solely to an inadequate beginning. And so we examine first, this Book I hold in my hand. What is it? Where does it come from? What is its history, and what makes it unique?

I harbor no illusions that I'll completely answer all these questions for you, but I can and will answer them in the manner that satisfied me as I sought out the answers for myself. I will share with you what I have found, in hopes that you will see what I see. If not, well... I can do no more. Nevertheless, it is here we must begin.


"For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)



It is from the above two New Testament passages primarily, and from many others as well, that we derive our stance on the Bible. The observation that is continually surfacing from those who challenge the authenticity, infallibility and/or the inerrancy of the Bible, seems to be "That's absurd! How can it possibly be inerrant, when there are so many different versions and nobody uses the same one?!" Or the reaction is an immediate judgment of the sort that goes, "It's just a book written by man (and many different men, at that), so of course it's not infallible."

An honest observation, and I will give an honest reply. The plain and simple answer is that when we discuss the concept of Scripture being inerrant, we're not talking about any of the English versions or translations of the Bible, whether it be the King James Version, or even the Latin texts that were used for centuries. We're not even talking about the copies of the Greek and Hebrew texts that were passed around by the early Church, which we have compilations of available to us today.

What we're talking about, when we say that Scripture is inerrant, are the originally penned writings of the original authors of the original books. In other words, as Paul put ink to paper (or as the case probably was, as he dictated them to a scribe), we believe that the Holy Spirit was working with and through Paul (and the other writers), in a way that we do not, and cannot, fully understand, in order to bring to the Church the authoritative Word of God.

Each writer obviously maintained their own perspective and flavor of writing, which is evident from the texts, but overall, there is an incomparable cohesiveness to the whole of Scripture, due to the fact that there is One overall Overseer throughout the history of the writing process.

So if we're talking about the original texts, then you may ask "What good are these translations and other versions then?" Another good question, to be sure. We do not have any of the originally penned texts of Scripture at all. But what we do have, are thousands of scraps and bits of very early copies of texts, and a few very early complete manuscripts containing the whole Bible (or at least most of it). And so what we have is a history full of attempts at compiling those copies of the Greek and Hebrew texts (the original languages that the Bible was written in), and then translating them into common language, in order that they be useful for the common man.

Unfortunately, that history is also full of attempts by corrupt individuals and mislead groups of people, who desired to use Scripture as a tool for power. "He who controls the Holy Book, controls the masses," seems to be the overarching theme throughout history.

On the upside, that same history is also dotted with bright spots, where various individuals (such as John Wycliff, John Hus, William Tyndale, and Martin Luther, to name a few) struggled and sacrificed to ensure that the common man had open access to the Word of God, as it was originally intended. You may read more about the history of the Bible Translation here.

In summary, what we need to realize, is that reading and studying the Bible is just as much an academic activity as it is a spiritual one. Due diligence in research and thought is needed in order to "rightly divide" Scripture, to use a biblical term. If one approaches the Bible with a purely academic approach, it's very likely you will not glean from it as much as you could. Likewise, if one approaches Scripture with the attitude that research, intellectual study, and the academic pursuits have no place with the Bible, then we are seriously limiting our ability to understand what the intended communication is to be. There must be a balance and a use of both the spiritual and the intellectual. One without the other is the recipe for terrible doctrines that work counter to the intent of the message of Scripture.

Welcome to Reason & Faith!

The idea for Reason & Faith has been brewing for quite some time in my mind, and I'm glad I'm actually taking the time to begin. I have been confronted with good, honest questions concerning my faith and trust in the Bible, and in Historical Christianity, and ultimately in Christ Himself, for as long as I've been a Christian, which is going on 16 years now. In my quests to answer these questions for my own benefit, I've been lucky enough to discover some of the greatest writings ever put on paper. What I've come to find, is that there is rarely anything asked or pointed out, that has not already been confronted and dealt with from multiple angles and perspectives. There truly is "nothing new under the sun."

So if you're looking for something new, you probably won't find it here. Unless you consider abondoning rhetoric something new, that is. My goal here, is simply to educate on the arguments, on the texts and doctrines themselves which are being brought into question, and to boldly confront those who slander Scripture and the person of Jesus Christ, out of simple misunderstanding at best, and out of vicious hatred for what I consider the blantant Truth at worst.

Where possible, I will keep the posts short and to the point. Where a point requires more attention I will try to break it up into multiple posts. If at any time, you feel a subject requires more attention than I've given it, feel free to leave a comment asking questions, making counter-arguments, or simply pointing out where I may be mistaken in my point of view. I will always welcome a challenge.

At any rate, enjoy, and I hope you find this at least somewhat compelling, if not helpful.