| |
SUBJECT OF THIS STUDY
The Word of God, the Bible, is true in all that it affirms
in its original text (the Autographa). The use of Textual Criticism has
given the Christian Faith a trustworthy text, as trustworthy as the Autographa.
(Francis Schaeffer) .."The Bible is the watershed for evangelical
Christianity...and is true in all that it affirms"..
From the time of the Cross there have been many who sought to subvert
Christianity through liberal thought and teachings. Over the last fifty
years the words of the Bible have been twisted to support many of Liberalisms
finest doctrines: That homosexuality is an alternate lifestyle; Man
is not truly head of the household; Family values are of no importance;
Marriage is an old fashioned premise; Other religions are just as valid
for salvation as that which we find in Christ; Christ was only a good
man; Evolutionary theory can be supported by the Genesis account; and
on, and on. When Conservative Theologians, standing firm on the clear
teachings of Gods Word, refuted these teachings, Liberalism sought
another way. And that way was to claim that Gods Bible is no more than
an ancient yet faulty text, no better than a sonnet by Shakespeare or
a tale by Milton. While Liberals teach that scripture was perverted
by mans hand, Conservatives strongly believe and teach that God the
Holy Spirit transmitted this sacred text through man while retaining
its purity of source. I believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of
God, and believe that this claim can be substantiated in four different
ways:
(1) Through the internal evidence of scripture, what the Bible says
about itself.
(2) Through historical evidence, what the apostolic fathers and reformers
said about the scripture.
(3) Through the scientific process of Textual Criticism.
(4) Through the logical use of our own minds to reach a sane conclusion.
A blend of all these methods can be seen in the words of Theologian
C.S. Lewis, who stated:
"The scriptures cannot be legends. They are not good enough to be
legends (no prose, no art in fact, no explanation of where God came
from). If they are legends and not historical, then they are realistic
prose fiction of a kind which actually never existed before the eighteenth
century"..
HISTORICAL EVIDENCES IN JEWISH HISTORY
The Jewish Faith is built on the idea of total scriptural inerrancy.
The Jews, believing themselves to be Gods chosen people, felt that
they had a duty to carry and transmit His Word with absolute purity.
Jewish scribes went to extremes to maintain Gods Bible. When a scripture
was copied, the finished text was reviewed as much as a dozen times
to insure its exactness. If any error was encounter, the text wasnt
erased: the whole document was burned, and the scribe started anew.
The ancient historian Josephus said: "There are no discrepancies
in the facts recorded. The prophets learned their message by reason
of the inspiration which they received from God...they compiled accurately
the history of their own times"..
WITNESS OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
(Clement of Rome) "You have carefully studied the sacred scriptures
which are the true utterances of the Holy Ghost. You know that in them
there hath not been written anything that is unrighteous or counterfeit"..
(Justin Martyr) "The writers received from God the knowledge which
they taught... men whose sole foundation was to present themselves pure
to the energy of the Divine Spirit, in order that the Divine Plectrum
itself, descending from heaven, and using righteous men as an instrument
like a harp...might reveal the knowledge of things divine"..
(Augustine) "His members gave out the knowledge which they had received
through the diction of the Head; whatsoever He willed us to read concerning
His own words and acts, He bade them write, as though they were His
very own words"..
Additionally the Church Fathers Polycarp, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria,
Origen, Crysostom, and Athanasius all believed and taught the inerrancy
of scripture.
THE WITNESS OF THE REFORMERS
(Martin Luther) "The scriptures have never erred, the scriptures cannot
err... it is certain that scripture cannot disagree with itself"..
(John Calvin) When he admitted scriptural error, he called it alleged,
and attributed the alleged error to his own fallibility or to the neglect
of the copyist. Calvin accepted the scriptures as inerrant in the original
text, and believed that the Bible was dictated by God to man so that
it might be recorded perfectly. (see Institutes of the Christian Religion,
1.6.2N5; 1.7.1N1; 4.8.8N7; 4.8.9N9)
WITNESS OF THE CHURCH CREEDS
(Westminster Confession of Faith) .."It is the only infallible rule
of faith and practice."
(New Hampshire Confession of Faith).."It has God for its Author,
Salvation for its end and truth, without any mixture of error for its
matter"..
WITNESS OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES
It is evident even from a careless reading of the Gospels that our Lord
regarded the scriptures as something more than man inspired. Jesus referred
to specific scriptures 33 times, and used Holy Scripture as His only defense
against Satan (Matthew 4). Its not surprising that Jesus would quote
scripture, as he had a hand in its writing as a member of the Godhead.
If Jesus were only a good man, then how is it that He quoted scripture
that He knew to be fallible? Jesus quoted scripture because He believed
in its infallibility, and taught this doctrine to His disciples as well.
(2 Timothy 3.16) "All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
in righteousness"...
Inspiration of God, when translated literally from the original
text, means God Breathed. Scripture is the very breath of God, and all
of it as is written in the Autographa is equally pure. Alfords Greek
New Testament states:
"The meaning, unquestionable, both grammatically and textually [means]
every scripture, i.e., every part of scripture"..
While liberal thought teaches that the Bible is inerrant only in matters
pertaining to faith, the Bible itself recognizes its own sanctity.
If this text (which concerns a matter of faith) is in error, then where
are we to separate fact from fiction within scripture? Inerrancy is
a whole or nothing proposition: either the Bible is without error, or
it is no more than an ancient fairy tale.
2 Peter 1.21 "For the prophecy came not in hold time by the will
of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"...
1 Thessalonians 2.13 "..For this cause also thank we God without
ceasing, because, when ye received the Word of God which ye heard of
us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the
Word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe"..
Worketh is in a Greek tense that denotes active habitual action,
and can literally be translated keeps on working in you. Scripture is
not an ancient dead text, but a dynamic living Word that has the power
to transform the lives of those who believe in it. There is no room
for error in this type of living writing.
1 Corinthians 14.37 "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or
spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you
are the commandments of the Lord"..
It would be so easy to discount that portion of scripture that offends,
while accepting only the pleasing as inerrant. But one of the signs
of a maturing Christian is the ability to accept all scriptural teaching
as God breathed, whether its teachings suit your fancy or not. When
Paul taught the doctrine of authority, and its relationship to women,
do you accept this teaching as God breathed or is the teaching just
an ancient prejudice? Do you accept Gods condemnation of homosexual
behavior as a deviation from normal behavior, or were the Old Testament
authors uninformed? If we portray a portion of Holy Scripture as errant,
then by what basis do we proclaim other portions of the same inerrant?
Galatians 1.11-12 "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel
which was preached of me is not after man, for I neither received it
of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ"..
If you teach that errors exist in scripture, then cant we reasonably
assume that the gospel of Salvation is equally suspect? And if we pervert
the gospel message with our own message of error, what hope do any of
us have for salvation. I know in whom I have believed, because I accept
the Bible as the pure and undefiled Word of God. Otherwise, I am without
hope and totally undone.
Isaiah 46.9-11 "..Remember the former things of old, for I am God,
and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me. Declaring
the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are
not yet done, saying, my council shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth My council
from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass:
I have purposed it, I will also do it"..
Liberalism disregards Gods sovereignty in the transmission of scripture.
God is sovereign, as in complete control of all that He wills to do.
If we can accept this as fact, then we can also accept the fact that
God was able to control those whom He transmitted His Word through without
making the prophets into puppets, and yet to still insure what He desired
man to know was purely transmitted. In the Old Testament Thus saith
the Lord occurs more than 2000 times as a loud witness to the fact
that this is indeed Gods Word we are blessed with.
Over a period of some 1500 years God used over 40 authors, all with
different personalities and languages (the original text is written
in Hebrew, Chaldean, Assyrian, Greek, and Aramic. These authors wrote
from three continents (Africa, Asia, and Europe), yet each book of the
Bible historically and textually blends with the next, a monument to
Gods architectural control of His Record.
THE BIBLE IN LIGHT OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM
The uninformed liberal is fond of mentioning that we have none of the
original Autographa today, and what we do have is obviously copies of
copies and thus unreliable. By Textual Criticism we can easily disprove
this assertion. Textual Criticism is a scientific method of re-creating
the original text of ancient manuscripts by comparing existing copies.
The more copies of the work we have, the more accurate our re-creation
will be. The closer in time our copies are to the original, the more reliable
our re-creation will be. Textual Criticism has been used for years to
re-create ancient texts, yet no one has ever questioned these re-creations
as mere fabrications. For instance, the following classical authors writings
have been recreated using Textual Criticism (and with only a few existing
scribal manuscripts):
- Plato, seven copies exist, earliest dated copy 1200 years
from original mss
- Caesar (Gaelic Wars), ten copies exist, earliest dated copy 1000
years from original
- Aristotle, five copies exist, earliest dated copy 1400 years
from original
- Aristophanes, ten copies exist, earliest dated copy 1200 years
from original
- Sophocles, a hundred copies exist, earliest dated copy 1400
years from original
The closest scribal copy (by years) is Caesars, dated 1000 years from
the original Autographa. The most scribal copies available to Textual
Criticism for an extant Autographa is the works of Sophocles. Textual
Criticism has taken these few copies, compared them, and reproduced classical
works that are (by popular opinion) absolutely valid. Now lets look at
what Textual Criticism had to work with , with our Bible:
- John Riley manuscripts date 100 years from the Autographa
- Papyri 2 manuscripts date 150 years from the Autographa
- Chester Beattie manuscripts date 135 years from the Autographa
- Vaticanus manuscripts date 220 years from the Autographa
With assorted other manuscripts, available copies for Textual Criticism
are an astounding 5000
The reproduced Autographa of Scripture has a greater reliability than
any of the classic ancient texts: by scholarly estimates, the Bible
is 99% accurate to the Autographa, with the 1% textual uncertainty being
excluded from any area concerning Christian faith and practice, or Biblical
historicity. I believe that God in His sovereignty allowed the original
texts to disappear, lest we worship them or enshrine them. But He left
us a more than adequate replacement in the multitude of ancient manuscripts
available today.
WHERE DO ALLEGED BIBLE DISCREPANCIES ORIGINATE?
The answer is simple: from our own ignorance in good Bible exposition,
and from our own faithlessness. When good Biblical exegesis done in good
faith is practiced, the majority of these errors are shown to be in
the interpretation, not in the text. Situations that lead to alleged discrepancies
are:
1. Different methods of recording time. The Jews had two chronological
dating systems, one sacred and one secular. Among early Latin Christians
there were seven different methods of dating. The early Romans also
had another method of dating, as did most early peoples. When you see
two Biblical Authors use two different dates to describe the same event,
then you are not witnessing a discrepancy. God always addresses the
audience in a way that best gets the message across, so its not unusual
that He would use a dating system peculiar to the early readers.
2. The evolution of the thought and language of man. As man
ages on planet Earth, his language evolves. Terminology used yesterday
is obsolete today. As before, God addressed the audience of that time
in ways that best conveyed His message. There is no discrepancy here.
3. Different standards of presentation. Liberals make much of
the fact that, for instance, the Gospels seem to disagree. One case
in point is that the Beatitude account of Luke is not as complete as
the same account written in Matthew. But we must understand that, again,
God always addresses His early audiences in the best way possible. Luke
was the Gospel to the Greek Christians, and contains exactly the message
God wanted to convey. The same is true of Matthew, which was directed
toward the Jewish Christians. God took into account the cultural bias
of each group He addressed, and directed the Gospel written accordingly.
The primary purpose of the Gospels was and is to present the Gospel
message of salvation to a peculiar group of people.
4. Changes of circumstance or situation. As a situation or condition
changes, Gods attitude toward man may change. Following Creation, God
looked at everything that was done as said that it was good. But when
man fell into sin, God repented that He had made man, and washed the
majority of evil off of the earth using the Flood. God didnt change,
man changed for the worse, and forced God to act harshly in punishment
and judgment.
5. The recording of declarations made by historic features.
The Bible accurately records what early beings said, whether what the
individual said was truthful or not. Where the Bible records Gods spoken
word, this word is always true. But where man or fallen angel speaks,
the Bible records what they said accurately, though what they said may
be inaccurate. Again, though the statements made may not be intrinsically
true, the statement is inerrantly recorded verbatim as the speaker made
it.
6. The audience of the speaker and the direction of the teaching.
Just as with the Gospels, God the Holy Spirit often directed His words
through human writers to different groups of people. Paul in writing
the Romans noted that works without faith is dead, as the Romans had
turned Gods message of Grace in salvation into an exercise of the Law.
Follow this code, follow that code, or you cant be saved. The Apostle
John, on the other hand, wrote to a group of believers who were falling
into Gnosticism; i.e., you can sin now that youre saved, for God will
wipe it all our. John emphasized the message, Faith without works
is dead, not because salvation requires a code of ethics, but because
the truly saved believer will produce the fruits of righteousness. Both
authors taught the same thing, that a saved believer will automatically
(under the power of Gods Holy Spirit) be changed into a new creature,
where all things are new in his or her life. Faith saves, but saving
Faith is evidenced by works.
7. Oriental idioms are misunderstood. The scripture tells us
that Gods power influences the four corners of the earth. Early believers
and ancient man took this literally to mean that the earth was flat,
and often executed or ridiculed scientists for seeking to prove the
earth was round. We use a modification of this term today, the four
points of the compass, to denote all over the earth. Another traditional
term, rising of the sun, or setting of the sun doesnt
denote that the author mean that the sun itself was moving. Actually,
we still use the same terms today in sunrise and sunset, and we fully
understand that the earth revolves around the sun. A good expositor
recognizes the idioms for what they are, and never literalizes their
meaning.
8. Discrepancies in names of people or places. In ancient times
significance was always attached to a name. God changed Abrams name
to Abraham when He recognized his great faith and made him the father
of many nations. Sarais name was changed to Sarah after she inherited
the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant. It is always good to read and
study the whole context of a scripture before crying discrepancy over
a name change.
9. Human error. Human error by Biblical scholars is by far the
greatest cause of all discrepancies. You need to remember to following
things about studying scripture in context:
- Though the context of a verse is often near the verse, at other
times the context may be in the preceding or following chapters of
that book, or within a series of Bible books. Often a topical Bible
is a great study resource, as it shows all like occurrences of the
topic youre studying.
- You may need to look up the original language meaning of the text
youre studying. Remember that our Bible was written in several other
languages, and then translated into English for our reading pleasure.
No matter how Godly or well intentioned the translator, they did make
mistakes. Invest in a key-word study Bible that has an English/ Ancient
text lexicon. Youll be amazed at the clarity you add to your Bible
study.
- The context of a verse often can only be understood when you understand
the historical background of the writing. You need to ask (and answer)
questions like:
To whom was the Bible book originally addressed to?
What was their spiritual state at the time of the writing?
What significant historical event caused God to write the message?
- Verses are often misinterpreted when their context is merged with
the context of other verses. You can take Scripture out of context
and proved God to be a liar, Satan to be good, or man just misguided.
Make sure you stay in the proper scriptural context.
- And this is a biggie: Verses are often misinterpreted because you
want them the say something. In the Middle Ages many people supported
the doctrine that the earth was flat because they thought the Bible
taught this. When science taught that evolution was what brought life
to man, many believers went to their Bibles and worked out a supporting
doctrine because they wanted to defend God or their beliefs. God can
defend Himself, and if you ground your belief in Him then you are
protected as well. As Lord Kelvin once stated, Physical science has
nothing to say against the order of creation as given in Genesis.
Science theorizes, Gods Word knows.
HOW AN ERRANT SCRIPTURE EFFECTS CHRISTIANITY
The Bible is worthless to the Christian Church if it is filled with error.
We must know in whom we have believed, that He lived and died and rose
again for our eternal salvation. If the Bible is erroneous then we cant
even say for certain that He lived, much less died for us. We dont know
that theres a heaven other than that which we see reported of it in the
Bible.
(C.S. Lewis) .."You start arming against the devil when you know
and recognize his works. He doesnt want you to believe in him. His
first aim is to give you an anesthetic to put you off your guard. Only
when this fails do you recognize him"..
|