This past Sunday our sermon addressed the issues of the canon of Scripture and the reliability of the Bible. Specifically, the Top 10 Question read, How did we get the Bible and how do we know we can trust the canon we have? During the sermon we invited people to text questions and I spent a few minutes at the end of the sermon answering a few of these. You can watch the sermon and see the question & answer time on our YouTube channel by clicking here. Time did not allow me to give answers to all the questions, so I promised a post to address the other submitted.
I will start with a bit of an explanation of how I will answer all of these questions, and some thoughts about how you can dive deeper. Time, both here and in my life does not allow for super lengthy or complex answers (although if you read to the end of this you will think I did, but trust me). So my plan is to give a brief answer, and maybe point to an article or other resource for each question. I don’t want to minimize the depth and seriousness of any of these questions. So here is the reality. Our culture has a lot of skeptics, with a lot of questions. Often they believe they have the question that is the “Ace of Spades” that proves the Bible is false, and our faith is silly. My encouragement is this, do not fear these people or their questions, and don’t get discouraged when their arguments seem solid and your don’t have an answer. These questions have all been asked by brilliant atheists and skeptics for a long time, but they have also been answered by brilliant and capable Christians who have researched, reasoned, and given thorough responses in lectures, articles, and books. While my responses will be short, you can find (or I can point you to) much more thorough resources on any of these questions. And be assured, there are answers. Our faith is true, the Bible is what it claims to be, and there are solid reasons for belief.
So, before I go on, I do want to point you to one excellent and super-readable book on this subject. Why Trust the Bible is a 9-Marks book by Greg Gilbert. While short and to the point, Gilbert effectively explains evidences for the reliability of the Bible, including addressing questions about the canon and inspiration. I would encourage everyone to grab this book and give a read.
So here we go.
*How do we handle apparent contradictions in Scripture?
If someone raised this question, my first response would be to ask, “What contradictions? Can you name them?” This is kind of a pop-culture challenge to the Bible, yet most people could not give an actual example of a contradiction. If they could, then I would seek to answer that supposed contradiction. But the truth is, when rightly understood, there are not really any so called “contradictions” without a fairly simple explanations. Most of the time the apparent contradiction simply lies in the emphasis and purpose of different authors. Here is a simple example. Paul argues clearly in Romans 3-4 that we are justified by faith alone, and not by works on any level. On the other hand, James argues in James 2 that we are not justified by faith alone, but faith and works. Seems like a contradiction, right? Well, not so fast. We have to look at the broader themes and purpose for the text and book. In Paul’s passage, he is wrestling with the question, “How are we justified?” Being declared right with God and forgiven of sins is central to our salvation, so Paul rightly argues that a person is justified by faith in Jesus alone, apart from works. James on the other hand is asking the question, “How do we know that we are justified?” He is wrestling with the authenticity of faith as the basis for assurance. So James rightly argues that simple mental belief in Jesus, even with a confession that does not produce life change resulting in Christian works is not authentic faith and therefore gives evidence that a person’s faith was not saving faith. This is not a contradiction, it is a difference in emphasis. So James would agree with Paul, and Paul would agree with James. This is just one simple example of a much larger point. A little bit of research and Bible study can answer almost any question of contradiction.
Logos article –Are there Contradictions in the Bible: An Apologist’s Answer
*Doesn’t science show that everything evolved from a cell which came from lightning and water? Also, doesn’t science show that the universe was created without God?
I need to begin my answer with this question with a disclaimer, I am not a scientist, and do not have expertise in the sciences. So I have to be careful. Yet, like the previous answer, I also know that there are brilliant scientists who hold a Biblical worldview and who have written well reasoned responses and critiques to so called “settled science.” What I will tell you is that what we often call science is actually philosophy. The goal of science is to observe and understand the universe, life, the way things work, etc. The truth is, that these sciences really do not know how the universe or life began. The significant hole is that for many, the starting point for much of what we call science is an assumption that the best explanation has to be an atheistic or agnostic explanation. If I seek to answer the questions of existence and origins beginning with the assumption that there is no God, and no such thing as the supernatural, and then I begin to offer explanations for existence without even considering a very plausible and reasonable explanation, it is incredibly possible that my “science” has not actually considered all the options. In other words, when science begin their scientific research and study with the a priori assumption that there is not God, they are doing philosophy, not science. And when science does not consider all of the plausible explanations and evidences, the science itself is actually faulty. Furthermore, there are massive holes in both big-bang cosmology (existence of the universe) and evolutionary theory. So while it is better for me to avoid the arguments myself since it is not my field, there are people who have written great answers on this topic.
Also, one last point of clarity. The Bible itself is not a science book. We do believe as followers of Jesus that where the Bible speaks God speaks. And to rightly understand the Scriptures is to know real truth. Yet, the Bible is not seeking to give scientific answers or explanations to questions that are being raised in a college biology or astronomy class. In the end we will find that all truth is God’s truth, and that the greatest and truest explanation for all of this is stated in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
So a couple resources.
First, consider reading The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel
And check out this talk by Rebecca McLaughlin on “Hasn’t Science Disproved the Bible.”
*How could Noah get all the animals in a boat and how could they all fit?
First of all, the Ark was really big, about 1.88 million cubic feet. The large dimensions of the ark itself is a place to start. The text also speaks of kinds of animals, not necessarily species. So maybe Noah had one pair of cats, and not every single breed. But the truth is that any and all answers we give will be speculation. The fact of the matter is this, if we live in a closed universe without a God, or one in which God created and then left it to itself, then the flood and Ark is little more than an ancient mythological tale. But if there is a God who created everything, and who stepped into history to raise Jesus from the dead, then He is also a God who could both flood the world, and use an Ark to save a family and the animals He created.
*Doesn’t archeological finds show that the Bible has errors?
Again, this is a question in a lane where I have very little expertise, so need to be careful about how I answer. But I do know this, that archaeology cannot prove anything to be false, and is limited on what it can prove as true. Archeology is defined in Websters Dictionary as, “the scientific study of extinct peoples through skeletal remains, fossils, and objects of human workmanship (as implements, artifacts, monuments, or inscriptions) found in the earth” So lets take our favorite fictional archaeologist, Indiana Jones as an example. The Bible tells of the Ark of the Covenant, an ornate gold covered box that contained the tablets with the 10 Commandments. Scripture tells us that this box was carried by the Hebrews going before them on their journey and into battle, and that the presence and power of God rested on the box. Of course, Jones goes on a quest to find the Ark, digs it up, and eventually brings it to the US, where it is now hidden in a warehouse in New Mexico. Now here is the truth, in the story, finding the Ark confirmed the Arks existence somewhat verifying the Old Testament story. Yet, this type of discovery by itself says nothing about the purpose, use, and value of the Ark to the Hebrews. We have to have other texts and evidence to recreate that (such as the Old Testament). The dig itself could not confirm anything about it other than the existence of the ark itself. It can tell us nothing about the stories surrounding the ark and the presence of God in it. The actual truth is that archeologists have not actually found the Ark of the Covenant, and we are not sure where (or if) it exists today. Does not finding the ark disprove its existence and refute the Old Testament narrative. Of course not, because all archeology can do is dig, find artifacts, and piece together what those artifacts tell us. But there is no way archeology can reconstruct the entire truth around a story, nor can it refute the truthfulness of Biblical (or even the ancient stories from other traditions). That being said, there have been myriads of archeological finds that have verified truths declared in the Biblical narratives. A recent example is the discovery of a stone with an inscription “House of David” and “King of Israel”. Up until this discovery, there had been no archeological finds verifying the existence of David. Of course, there were ancient Biblical manuscripts, but nothing in a dig. So skeptics began to refute David’s existence as a real person, bringing into question the Biblical witness of him. Of course, this was an overreach on what archeology can do, but skeptics be skepticing. Then one day in 1993, eureka! And now no good historian disputes the existence of a man named David who was king in Israel. The point is that Archaeology cannot negate any historical claim either from the Bible or other historical works. There are points where it can affirm the claims, but silence in archaeology cannot prove errors or mistakes in any work.
Here’s a good article from Answers in Genesis on archaeology and the Bible.
*How do we know that Jesus really lived in history? Also, how can we know Jesus really died and that he rose, what evidence is there?
These two questions go together, asking about the historicity of Jesus life, death, and resurrection. Lets start with the two different types of evidence. I’ve heard the claim that there is no scientific evidence for Jesus, miracles, or the resurrection. The problem with that statement is that science cannot prove any event or person in history. There is no “scientific” evidence that Abraham Lincoln lived or that he was president. To gain that knowledge we have to lean into historical evidence, which weighs things like eyewitness testimony, historical accounts, archeological evidence, artifacts, diaries, photographs or paintings, etc. The ultimate problem with historical evidence is that it does not have the ability of “absolute proof”. Often there is mountains of evidence that should give us the ability to believe something is true “beyond a reasonable doubt.” But we cannot re-create the assassination of Lincoln in a test tube, and some conspiracy theorists will doubt that it happened. Still, the evidence for that event is massive. My argument (and those of so many Christians who have sought to defend the faith) is that the historical evidence for the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus nearly as significant. Specifically, the amount of eyewitness testimony (or those close to eyewitness testimony) produced within 30 years of Jesus’ life.
The first question really is without debate anymore (of course there will always be someone). The evidence that a single human being named Jesus who lived in Israel, claimed to be the Christ, and was crucified by the Romans during the First Century is massive and really insurmountable. Not only do we have the witness of the New Testament authors, Matthew, Mark, Paul, Luke (in Acts), Peter, James, John, the author of Hebrews, and Jude in the New Testament (noticed I named them, because we are not talking about a single witness but a significant plurality of witnesses). But there are also myriads of other writings, both Christian and non-Christian that affirm the life and influence of Jesus. These include the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus. Once we determine the historicity of Jesus as an authentic human being, the second question wrestles with the evidence for the resurrection. If Jesus lived, and died on a Roman cross, how do we explain the witnesses that then proclaim that three days later this very dead man walked out of His grave. More importantly, what is the basis for discounting these witnesses and their testimony that the dead man was alive? Well, rather than giving a lengthy defense here and making this post way too long, I wanted to share a couple articles.
Crossway – 4 Points of Evidence for the Resurrection
The Gospel Coalition – 10 Concise Pieces of Evidence for the Resurrection
*How can we trust Scripture-that is “let God be true”, when all of special revelation comes thr0ugh the conduit of men, and we know that “all men are liars?”
The Bible itself affirms the fallen nature of every human, including the authors of Scripture. Actually, it goes even further, the Bible goes to great lengths to show us how messed up and broken the Biblical “heroes” actually are and how deep their sin runs. But does the fact that the people who penned Scripture are sinners and hot messes demand that we then realize that the Bible is basically a human book and that there must be errors? First of all, the internal witness of the Bible rejects this notion. Over and over again it uses phrases such as, “All Scripture is God-breathed,” “This saith the LORD,” and “Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” But just because it makes these claims does not make them true. The question then is this, is God able to protect His Word even though He revealed it through the pens, lips, and lives of broken people. The answer is a ginormous “YES”! How do we know this. Within the pages of Scripture, over and over again, we can see the hand of God revealing that He is the True Author behind the authors. Again, rather than writing on this, pointing you to a very good post by apologist and author, Norm Geisler.
Norman Geisler – How Do we Know the Bible is the Word of God
Ok, last one.
*Can you explain how the accuracy of the Bible that we have today compared with the Dead Sea Scrolls?
In 1947 a Jewish boy was throwing rocks in the region near the Dead Sea. He threw a stone in a cave and heard the sound of breaking pottery. His dad came and found what became one of the most important discoveries of all time, what we call the Dead Sea Scrolls. Archaeologists unearthed a library from an ancient community of a Hebrew sect called Essenes dating from the Second Century BC to the First Century AD. These people basically withdrew from the larger Jewish community because of the influence of Roman rule and culture. It seems that the Roman occupation and destruction of Israel around 70 AD drove these people away from Qumran (the name of the settlement), leaving this library buried and hidden for 1900 years. Archeologists found over 900 scrolls, which included many works, most importantly, all or part of every Old Testament book with the exception of Esther. Previous to this find, the oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament, the Masoretic Text were from around 1000 AD. So now in history we can compare a Hebrew text that is 1000 and 2000+ years old. The wonder is that these texts, both of which relied on people making copies, were significantly alike. In other words, the Dead Sea scrolls adds so much weight on the reliability of the manuscripts for the Old Testament that we (human history) currently have, and adds to the trustworthiness we can have that our English Bible is being translated from a text that accurately reflects the words of the original human author. One more article.
Logos – What the Dead Sea Scrolls Reveal about the Bible’s Reliability
Thanks for reading.