Do Paul and James Disagree on Justification?

Was Abraham justified by faith or by works? Romans 4:2, James 2:21

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” (Romans 4:1-3 ESV)

 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe–and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”–and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead. (James 2:14-26 ESV)

This has been a source of debate in Christian history because it does seem like there is a contradiction between the teachings of Paul and those of James. I believe that what James is saying here is that good works naturally proceed from one who has been justified (made right with God).  Belief in God is not enough since even the demons believe and are terrified. If your life isn’t characterized by a faith and works, then it proves that you don’t have saving faith.

Genesis 15:6 says that Abram’s faith was counted as righteousness at the time that God called him and told him that, “…your very own son shall be your heir” even though Sarai, Abram’s wife was barren and advanced in years. Isaac was the promised child (seed) and was the heir of Abraham.  Abraham exercised (proved) his faith when God called upon him to offer his only son Isaac on an alter as a burnt sacrifice, Abraham’s faith and his belief that God would be faithful to His promise was evident when he told those with him, “I and the boy will go over there and worship and come again to you.”.  Abraham believed that God would somehow resurrect his son Isaac even if he sacrificed him (Hebrews 11:17-19).  This sacrifice of Abraham’s only son was to be a picture of what God would do when He would offer His only begotten Son on the cross in order to redeem a people from many nations.

 COMMENTARIES

 Jam 2:21 – Was not Abraham our father justified by works,…. Not as the causes of his justification, that is denied, Rom_4:2 but as effects of it, showing the truth of his faith, and the reality of his justification: he had both faith and works, and the former were known by the latter; and even the faith which he had expressed years ago was manifested, demonstrated, and confirmed to be true and genuine, by the instance of his obedience to God, here produced; by which it appeared he was a true believer, a justified person, approved of God, and loved by him. Now if this was the case of Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation, yea, the father of the faithful, of all that believe, he is, and must be a vain man, that talks of faith without works; and his faith must be a dead one, and he be very unlike the father of them that believe: the good work instanced in is the offering up of Isaac; – John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible – Dr. John Gill (1690-1771)

When Paul says that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law (Rom_3:28), he plainly speaks of another sort of work than James does, but not of another sort of faith. Paul speaks of works wrought in obedience to the law of Moses, and before men’s embracing the faith of the gospel; and he had to deal with those who valued themselves so highly upon those works that they rejected the gospel (as Rom. 10, at the beginning most expressly declares); but James speaks of works done in obedience to the gospel, and as the proper and necessary effects and fruits of sound believing in Christ Jesus. Both are concerned to magnify the faith of the gospel, as that which alone could save us and justify us; but Paul magnifies it by showing the insufficiency of any works of the law before faith, or in opposition to the doctrine of justification by Jesus Christ; James magnifies the same faith, by showing what are the genuine and necessary products and operations of it. 2. Paul not only speaks of different works from those insisted on by James, but he speaks of a quite different use that was made of good works from what is here urged and intended. Paul had to do with those who depended on the merit of their works in the sight of God, and thus he might well make them of no manner of account. James had to do with those who cried up faith, but would not allow works to be used even as evidence; they depended upon a bare profession, as sufficient to justify them; and with these he might well urge the necessity and vast importance of good works.  – Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible  Matthew Henry (1662 – 1714)

 

 

 

           

 

 

“Is The New Testament Text Reliable?” By Gregory Koukl

Is the New Testament Text Reliable? The   phrase, “The Bible’s been translated and recopied so many times…”   introduces one of the most frequent canards tossed at Christians quoting the   Bible. Can we know for certain that the New Testament has been handed down   accurately? Yes, we can. By: Gregory Koukl // SHARE THIS

related articles: Never Read A Bible Verse Is the Bible Sufficient? Video Commentary: Is the   Bible Literal? related product: How to Read the Bible for All   its Worth

In the spring of 1989 syndicated talk show host Larry King interviewed Shirley MacLaine on the New Age. When a Christian caller contested her view with an appeal to the New Testament, MacLaine brushed him off with the objection that the Bible has been changed and translated so many times over the last 2000 years that it’s impossible to have any confidence in its accuracy. King was quick to endorse her “facts.” “Everyone knows that,” he grunted.[1]

This appeal to common knowledge is enough to satisfy the ordinary, man-on-the-street critic of the New Testament. An appeal to the game “telephone” to demonstrate how reasonable this objection is. Whisper a message to one person and transfer it from person to person, ear to ear, in a circle. Then compare the message’s final form with the original. The radical transformation of the original phrase in so short a period of time is always good for a few laughs. This comparison is enough to convince the casual skeptic that the New Testament documents are equally unreliable.

The argument against the reliability of the New Testament texts can be stated very simply. How can we know that the documents we have in our possession accurately reflect originals destroyed almost two millennia ago? Communication is never perfect; people make mistakes. Errors are compounded with each successive generation, just like the message in the telephone game. By the time 2000 years pass, it’s anyone’s guess what the original said.

It’s easy to state the problem, and some may think merely raising the objection makes the argument itself compelling. Yet offering evidence on its behalf is a bit more difficult.

Usually the complaint is raised by people who have little understanding of the real issues. In cases like this, an appeal to common knowledge is more often than not an appeal to common ignorance. Like many questions about Christianity, this objection is voiced by people who haven’t been given reliable information.

Just the Facts, Ma’am

The question of authenticity is not really a religious concern at all; it’s an academic one. It can be answered in an academic way totally unrelated to spiritual convictions by a simple appeal to facts, an apologetic technique I call “Just the Facts, Ma’am.”

The objection at first glance is compelling. When we try to conceptualize how to reconstruct an original after 2000 years of copying, translating, and copying some more, the task appears impossible. The skepticism, though, is based on two misconceptions about the transmission of ancient documents like the New Testament.

The first assumption is that the transmission is more or less linear, as in the telephone example–one person communicating to a second who communicates with a third, etc. In a linear paradigm people are left with one message and many generations between it and the original. Second, the telephone game example depends on oral transmission which is more easily distorted and misconstrued than something written.

Neither assumption applies to the written text of the New Testament. First, the transmission was not linear but geometric–e.g., one letter birthed five copies which became 25 which became 200 and so on. Secondly, the transmission in question was done in writing, and written manuscripts can be tested in a way that oral communications cannot be.

Reconstructing Aunt Sally’s Letter

Let me illustrate how such a test can be made. It will help you to see how scholars can confidently reconstruct the text from existing manuscript copies even though the copies themselves have differences and are much older than the autograph (i.e., the original).

Pretend your Aunt Sally has a dream in which she learns the recipe for an elixir that would continuously maintain her youth. When she wakes up, she scribbles the directions on a scrap of paper, then runs into the kitchen to make up her first glass. In a few days her appearance is transformed. Sally is a picture of radiant youth because of her daily dose of what comes to be known as “Aunt Sally’s Secret Sauce.”

Sally is so excited she sends hand-written instructions to her three bridge partners (Aunt Sally is still in the technological dark ages–no photocopier) giving detailed instructions on how to make the sauce. They, in turn, make copies which each sends to ten of her own friends.

All is going well until one day Aunt Sally’s pet schnauzer eats the original copy of the recipe. Sally is beside herself. In a panic she contacts her three friends who have mysteriously suffered similar mishaps. Their copies are gone, too, so the alarm goes out to their friends in attempt to recover the original wording.

They finally round up all the surviving hand-written copies, twenty-six in all. When they spread them out on the kitchen table, they immediately notice some differences. Twenty-three of the copies are exactly the same. One has a misspelled word, though, one has two phrases inverted (“mix then chop” instead of “chop then mix”) and one includes an ingredient that none of the others has on its list.

Here is the critical question: Do you think Aunt Sally can accurately reconstruct her original recipe? Of course she could. The misspelled words can easily be corrected, the single inverted phrase can be repaired, and the extra ingredient can be ignored.

Even with more numerous or more diverse variations, the original can still be reconstructed with a high level of confidence given the right textual evidence. The misspellings would be obvious errors, the inversions would stand out and easily be restored, and the conclusion drawn that it’s more plausible that one word or sentence be accidentally added to a single copy than omitted from many.

This, in simplified form, is how the science of textual criticism works. Textual critics are academics who reconstruct a missing original from existing manuscripts that are generations removed from the autograph. According to New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce, “Its object [is] to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question.”[2]

The science of textual criticism is used to test all documents of antiquity–not just religious texts–including historical and literary writings. It’s not a theological enterprise based on haphazard hopes and guesses; it’s a linguistic exercise that follows a set of established rules. Textual criticism allows an alert critic to determine the extent of possible corruption of any work.

How Many and How Old?

The ability of any scholar to do effective textual criticism depends on two factors. First, how many existing copies are there to examine and compare? Are there two copies, ten, a hundred? The more copies there are, the easier it is to make meaningful comparisons. Second, how close in time are the oldest existing documents to the original?

If the numbers are few and the time gap is wide, the original is harder to reconstruct with confidence. However, if there are many copies and the oldest existing copies are reasonably close in time to the original, the textual critic can be more confident he’s pinpointed the exact wording of the autograph.

To get an idea of the significance of the New Testament manuscript evidence, note for a moment the record for non-biblical texts. These are secular texts from antiquity that have been reconstructed with a high degree of certainty based on the available textual evidence.

The important First Century document The Jewish War, by Jewish aristocrat and historian Josephus, survives in only nine complete manuscripts dating from the 5th Century–four centuries after they were written.[3] Tacitus’ Annals of Imperial Rome is one of the chief historical sources for the Roman world of New Testament times, yet, surprisingly, it survives in partial form in only two manuscripts dating from the Middle Ages.[4] Thucydides’ History survives in eight copies. There are 10 copies of Caesar’s Gallic Wars, eight copies of Herodotus’ History, and seven copies of Plato, all dated over a millennium from the original. Homer’s Iliad has the most impressive manuscript evidence for any secular work with 647 existing copies.[5]

Bruce’s comments put the discussion in perspective: “No classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of any use to us are over 1300 years later than the originals.”[6]

For most documents of antiquity only a handful of manuscripts exist, some facing a time gap of 800-2000 years or more. Yet scholars are confident of reconstructing the originals with some significant degree of accuracy. In fact, virtually all of our knowledge of ancient history depends on documents like these.

The Biblical Manuscript Evidence

By comparison with secular texts, the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is stunning. The most recent count (1980) shows 5,366 separate Greek manuscripts represented by early fragments, uncial codices (manuscripts in capital Greek letters bound together in book form), and minuscules (small Greek letters in cursive style)![7]

Among the nearly 3,000 minuscule fragments are 34 complete New Testaments dating from the 9th to the 15th Centuries.[8]

Uncial manuscripts provide virtually complete codices (multiple books of the New Testament bound together into one volume) back to the 4th Century, though some are a bit younger. Codex Sinaiticus, purchased by the British government from the Soviet government at Christmas, 1933, for £100,000,[9] is dated c. 340.[10] The nearly complete Codex Vaticanus is the oldest uncial, dated c. 325-350.[11] Codex Alexandrinus contains the whole Old Testament and a nearly complete New Testament and dates from the late 4th Century to the early 5th Century.

The most fascinating evidence comes from the fragments (as opposed to the codices). The Chester Beatty Papyri contains most of the New Testament and is dated mid-3rd Century.[12] The Bodmer Papyri II collection, whose discovery was announced in 1956, includes the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John and much of the last seven chapters. It dates from A.D. 200 or earlier.[13]

The most amazing find of all, however, is a small portion of John 18:31-33, discovered in Egypt known as the John Rylands Papyri. Barely three inches square, it represents the earliest known copy of any part of the New Testament. The papyri is dated on paleographical grounds at around A.D. 117-138 (though it may even be earlier),[14] showing that the Gospel of John was circulated as far away as Egypt within 30 years of its composition.

Keep in mind that most of the papyri are fragmentary. Only about 50 manuscripts contain the entire New Testament, though most of the other manuscripts contain the four Gospels. Even so, the manuscript textual evidence is exceedingly rich, especially when compared to other works of antiquity.

Ancient Versions and Patristic Quotations

Two other cross checks on the accuracy of the manuscripts remain: ancient versions and citations by the early church Fathers known as “patristic quotations.”

Early in the history of the Church Greek documents, including the Scriptures, were translated into Latin. By the 3rd and 4th Centuries the New Testament was translated into Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, etc. These texts helped missionaries reach new cultures in their own language as the Gospel spread and the Church grew.[15] Translations of the Greek manuscripts (called “versions”) help modern-day textual critics answer questions about the underlying Greek manuscripts.

In addition, there are ancient extra-biblical sources–characteristically catechisms, lectionaries, and quotes from the church fathers–that record the Scriptures. Paul Barnett says that the “Scriptures…gave rise to an immense output of early Christian literature which quoted them at length and, in effect, preserved them.”[16] Metzger notes the amazing fact that “if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, [the patristic quotations] would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament.”[17]

The Verdict

What can we conclude from this evidence? New Testament specialist Daniel Wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the New Testament, this number is very misleading. Most of the differences are completely inconsequential–spelling errors, inverted phrases and the like. A side by side comparison between the two main text families (the Majority Text and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98% of the time.[18]

Of the remaining differences, virtually all yield to vigorous textual criticism. This means that our New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine.[19]

Greek scholar D.A. Carson sums up this way: “The purity of text is of such a substantial nature that nothing we believe to be true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants.”[20]

This issue is no longer contested by non-Christian scholars, and for good reason. Simply put, if we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds we’d have to reject every ancient work of antiquity and declare null and void every piece of historical information from written sources prior to the beginning of the second millennium A.D.

Has the New Testament been altered? Critical, academic analysis says it has not.

 

---

[1]Larry King with Shirley MacLaine, spring 1989.

[2]Bruce, F. F., The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 19.

[3]Barnett, Paul, Is the New Testament History? (Ann Arbor: Vine Books, 1986), 45.

[4]Geisler, Norman L., Nix, William E., A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 405. Note: Bruce records two existing copies of this document (p. 16) but Barnett claims there’s only one (p. 45) and that single copy exists in partial form. To be conservative, I’ve cited Geisler & Nix’s statistics.

[5]Metzger, Bruce M., The Text of the New Testament (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), 34. This number consists of 457 papyri, 2 uncials and 188 minuscule manuscripts.

[6]Bruce, 16-17.

[7]Geisler & Nix, 402.

[8]Ibid.

[9]Metzger, 45.

[10]Geisler & Nix, 392.

[11]Ibid., 391.

[12]Ibid., 389-390.

[13]Metzger, 39-40.

[14]Geisler & Nix, 388.

[15]Barnett, 44.

[16]Ibid., p. 46-47.

[17]Metzger, 86.

[18]Wallace, Daniel, “The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?,” Bibliotheca Sacra, April-June, 1991, 157-8.

[19]Geisler and Nix, 475.

[20]Carson, D.A., The King James Version Debate (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 56.

 

Impossible To Believe!

Beside this blog, I also have a twitter account @Eph2_1_10 where I spend some time reading other tweets and reading their blog posts.  One of the things that I frequently do is look on #Bible or #Atheists (they get mad if you spell it atheist) just to see what they have to say and try to engage in mostly pleasant communication with them.

I personally don’t believe that there is such a thing as a “pure” atheist, what I mean by that is that I believe what the Scripture says in Romans chapter 1 that all people are born with the knowledge of God.  This doesn’t mean that they know God, but that they know that there must be a God who created all that we have in the world. The fact that they have a conscience and know how to keep the law even though they may not have the written law, proves they have God’s law written on their hearts (Romans 2:14-15). I think what makes one an atheist is a continued hardening of the heart against the notion of a God because if they were to believe in God that would mean that they would have to submit to that God and then they would lose their autonomy.  We all want to be the master of our own destiny in our natural fallen state.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV)   

One of the things that I have noticed over the years on blogs and other social media is that the Bible continues to be proved right when it says that only those that have been called of God will be able to understand and receive the words of Christ.  Years ago I was told that I was trying to be deputy Holy Spirit because I tried to argue people into the Kingdom.  Since then I have come to a more clear understanding of God’s effectual call and man’s inability apart from the Holy Spirit to ever come to Christ.  Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God is the way the Bible puts it in Romans 10:17, but not all that hear the Word of Christ will be convinced except those that the Father has chosen for His Son from before the foundation of the world (John 6:39, 44, 10:29).

Faith in Christ is impossible for those whom the Father has not called. Faith is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8-9) because God is the only one who can raise the dead.  Jesus told His disciples that that they had been allowed to “know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 13:11b).  Jesus told this to his disciples after telling the people the parable of the sower, the seed, and the 4 types of ground. Only one type of ground was able to produce a crop.  It wasn’t the seed (the word of the kingdom of God) that was different, but what was different was the type of ground (hearts of man); the ground that is prepared of God to receive the seed and produce a harvest.

What I’m saying is that I don’t have the power to convert anyone.  Paul, who was an incredibly intelligent man, knew that he wouldn’t be able to win converts with clever arguments; in fact, he purposely didn’t try to use human wisdom.

For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, (1 Corinthians 1:17-28 ESV)

 My aim then is to be a light and to continue to speak (or write) the Gospel in hopes that through the Gospel, God will open the eyes of some and cause them to have the eyes of their understanding opened and that God will cause them to be born-again to a new and living hope.  This is totally a work of God, but God has ordained the preaching of His word to be the vehicle of opening the eyes of the blind and delivering them from the domain of darkness and transferring them to the kingdom of His beloved Son (Colossians 1:13)!

 

 

Joel Osteen’s “I Am” Sermon – Not Much Different From False Teacher Dr. Wayne Dyer

For many years I have followed Oprah Winfrey on television – watching her T.V. show and now from time to time her network OWN.  One of the things that amazes me is how far she has fallen from the good little Baptist girl that she once marketed herself to be.

Years ago Oprah totally abandoned “Jesus is the only way” and has been pushing her own brand of spirituality with the likes of Ekhardt Tolle, Deepack Chopra, Dr. Wayne Dyer, and Marianne Williamson.  On Oprah’s OWN network she has a show called “Super Soul Sunday” where she has a platform to peddle her anti-Christ religion.  I saw an episode of SSS which was a replay of “The Oprah Show” dating back to 1996 which I think is the very beginning of her entrance into popularity as a “spiritual” teacher.  In this episode of “The Oprah Show” there was a panel of new-age type people, one who claimed to have come back from the dead, and others that talked about “the power within”.  In the audience that day was a woman who challenged Oprah’s understanding of spiritual matters and those of the panel.  One of the things that struck me was that this woman had great courage in the face of opposition and how she stuck to her guns.  I could tell that she had totally lost any kind of respect that she had for Oprah especially when Oprah said that Jesus wasn’t the only way and that there were many paths to God.

Well, this post isn’t about Oprah (well it is kind of).  I have been noticing over the years that many “Christian” Pastors, Authors, Speakers, etc. have been the guests of Oprah’s “Lifeclass” show.  I first noticed that Joel Osteen was on the show quite frequently and that “Bishop” T. D. Jakes has also been a regular on Oprah’s various shows and special events with Tony Robbins, Deepack Choprah, and Iyania Vanzant.  This past week I have seen Sadleback’s Rick Warren and Dr. Gary Chapman and I noticed that they all get along swimingly with Oprah and that Oprah LOVES their theology since it is no different from her own mutilated religion/philosophy/pseudo spirituality!  I wonder how many of these “Christian” men have shared the Gospel of Grace with Oprah and challenged her to repent of her sin and false teaching; my bet is that these men like the notoriety of being with Oprah more than they care if Oprah goes to Hell when she dies.

So, getting back to Joel Osteen’s “I am” sermon.  When I compared what I have heard from false teacher and spiritual teacher Wayne Dyer I could find not many differences in what they teach and believe.  Both Dyer and Osteen say that words have creative power and that the affirmations you say to yourself are what you will become.  Osteen says that whatever follows “I am” is what will take place in your life just because you say it.  Osteen puts it this way “whatever comes after “I am” comes to chase you down”.  His sermon makes a mockery of Biblical exegesis and mangled the text to match his silly assumptions.  He begins to talk of Sarai (Sarah) and Abraham and the promise of a child through Sarai, but gets their ages wrong, says that God changed her name to Sarah because she had issues with self-esteem, and that “God knew that it would never come to pass until he convinced Sarah to change her “I am’s”"  What kind of pabulum is that!  The Sovereign God of the universe couldn’t fulfill His promise until Sarai started to consider herself to be a Princess?  Then Osteen quotes Romans 4:18 and says that it says that we are to call things that are not as though they are.  Joel, do you read your Bible before you start shooting off your mouth?  Romans 4:18 says that God calls into existence the things that don’t exist! He creates Ex nihilo not man!

The main issue here is that man loves to hear uplifting messages about themselves.  They want to believe that they are the center and that they are great and glorious.  This man-centered message is the same one that was preached by the serpent in the garden, “you can be like God”!  It travels so well because it rejects the suffering servant and puts man on the throne and men love it.  Osteen preaches a cross-less easy message because he cares more about popularity, prestige and friendship with the world that he cares for the truth of the Gospel.  And his audience is mesmerized by this charlatan!

And nary a word about Jesus the author and perfector of our faith!  I don’t even think I have heard him mention the name of Jesus, but I sure have heard a lot about man and how great man is and why man should be lifted up and glorified!  That kind of “preaching’ makes me want to puke.  And the audience still sits mesmerized!

How sad!

Is The Bible Reliable?

This is not an original work, my apologies to the author whom I don’t know

How Does The Bible Compare to Other Ancient Books?

So, is the Bible really all that accurate? You’ve head it before. Maybe it’s by friends or a teacher….but, you’ve heard it: “Sure the Bible is a good book, but, it’s got mistakes.” Well, take a look at the evidence and decide for yourself. With regards to the Old Testament, the Jewish copyists of the Hebrew Scriptures had to follow strict rules:

• Each copy had to be written in a certain number of      columns of 30 letters width and with a certain number of lines to each      column. · Each copy had to be made from a certified original.
• Every letter was copied one at a time from the original.      They could not even write one letter from memory.
• The distance between each letter was measured by a single      hair or thread.
• Every letter on every page and book was counted against      the original. The number of times each letter occurred in the book was      counted and compared against the original.
• If one of these rules (and many others) were broken, the      entire copy was destroyed.

What about the New Testament you ask? There are two important factors involved in determining the reliability of a historical document:

1. The number of manuscript copies still around and,
2. the time between when it was first written and the oldest      copy still in existence.

Let’s compare the New Testament with some other writings of olden days. The New Testament was written over a time period of 60 years. We have over 24,000 copies and some of the copies we have are only 25 years removed from the originals! Caesar’s work, The Gallic Wars, was written over a 56 year period. We have 10 copies, the closest to the original is 1,000 years removed. We have 643 copies of Homer’s Iliad and there is a 500 year span between the original and oldest existing copy. So you see, no other work comes close to the New Testament. So why do so many put down the Bible as being inaccurate and untrustworthy?

Author	When Written	Earliest Copy Still in Existence Today	Time Span Between 1st Written and Oldest   Copy	Number of  Ancient Copies in Existence   Today
Pliny   the Younger	A.D.   61-113	850   A.D.	750   yrs	7
Caesar	100-   44 B.C.	900   A.D.	1,000   yrs.	10
Plato	427-347   B.C.	900   A. D.	1,200   yrs.	7
Aristolte	384-322   B.C.	.   1100 A. D.	1,400   yrs.	37
Sophocles	496-406   B.C.	1000   A.D.	1,400   yrs.	193
Euripedes	480-406   B.C.	1100   A.D.	1,500   yrs.	9
Catallus	54   B.C.	1550   A.D.	1,600   yrs.	3
New Testament	48 A. D. (Mark)	130 A.D. (N.T.)	80 yrs.	24,630

The Scriptures were written by over 40 different authors, over a period of approximately 1,500 years. These authors not only lived in different time periods, but were also in totally different cultures, living in totally different environments, over 3 different continents, in a wide variety of occupations. Yet, miraculously, all the books of Scripture are in complete unity and agreement, revealing the Nature of God, man and his relationship to God, and how God planned to restore that relationship. Scriptures are completely in agreement in controversial matters such as God, the meaning of life, etc…

NOTE:

Try getting even 5 people in 1 period of time, in 1 culture, to be in complete unity and thought about   even a simple controversial subject, i.e. “What about T.V.?”.   Scripture are one in thought because the were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Peoples,   places, and stories found in the Bible are all historically proven.

Critics at one time denied that the Hittites mentioned in the Bible had ever lived, because no record of their existence had yet been found. Today inAnkara,Turkey, there is an entire museum devoted to the Hittites.

The   Bible is the only book that bases its authenticity and authority on prophecy.   No other books, such as the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Hindu Vedas, the   Book of Mormon, the sayings of Budda or Confucious, have the element of   prophecy in them.

There were 25 specific prophecies of Jesus’s birth,betrayal, trial, death, burial, etc…. These were made by different men living between 1000 BC and 500 BC (500 years apart). Yet all were perfectly fulfilled be Jesus.

	There were a   total of 109 specific prophesies fulfilled at Jesus’s first coming.
	There are   hundreds of fulfilled prophesies in the ancient and modern history of the   Jewish people.

The Scriptures contain   advanced medical and sanitation knowledge that was thousands of years ahead   of its time.

Several   years ago archeologists found in the Hinnom Valley near Jerusalem, two silver   charms with biblical inscriptions on them, Numbers 6:24-26. When compared to   modern Bible translations they are essentially the same.

“Thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them” Deuteronomy 7:2

I found this passage in the Bible book of Deuteronomy where God is commanding the people of Israel to go in and destroy all the 7 nations that occupied the land that God was giving Israel.  While this commandment may seem harsh, by our standards, in the ancient world the destruction of whole peoples was  commonplace during times of war.  Many more atrocities than this were done by these nations upon their own children which included child sacrifice, child prostitution.  It is important to note that this does not apply today.  This was meant for a specific time and place and for a specific people (ancient Israel) against a specific people (7 nations) that were listed in verse 1.

The following is a portion of commentary in Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (Matthew Henry (1662 – 1714)) to explain God’s purposes in the destruction of the 7 nations of Canaan:

Deu 7:1-11

-Here is, I. A very strict caution against all friendship and fellowship with idols and idolaters. Those that are taken into communion with God must have no communication with the unfruitful works of darkness. These things they are charged about for the preventing of this snare now before them.

1. They must show them no mercy,

Deu_7:1, Deu_7:2. Bloody work is here appointed them, and yet it is God’s work, and good work, and in its time and place needful, acceptable, and honourable.

(1.) God here engages to do his part. It is spoken of as a thing taken for granted that God would bring them into the land of promise, that he would cast out the nations before them, who were the present occupants of that land; no room was left to doubt of that. His power is irresistible, and therefore he can do it; his promise is inviolable, and therefore he will do it. Now, [1.] These devoted nations are here named and numbered (

Deu_7:1), seven in all, and seven to one are great odds. They are specified, that Israel might know the bounds and limits of their commission: hitherto their severity must come, but no further; nor must they, under colour of this commission, kill all that came in their way; no, here must its waves be stayed. The confining of this commission to the nations here mentioned plainly intimates that after-ages were not to draw this into a precedent; this will not serve to justify those barbarous laws which give no quarter. How agreeable soever this method might be, when God himself prescribed it, to that dispensation under which such multitudes of beasts were killed and burned in sacrifice, now that all sacrifices of atonement are perfected in, and superseded by, the great propitiation made by the blood of Christ, human blood has become perhaps more precious than it was, and those that have most power yet must not be prodigal of it. [2.] They are here owned to be greater and mightier than Israel. They had been long rooted in this land, to which Israel came strangers; they were more numerous, had men much more bulky and more expert in war than Israel had; yet all this shall not prevent their being cast out before Israel. The strength of Israel’s enemies magnifies the power of Israel’s God, who will certainly be too hard for them.

(2.) He engages them to do their part. Thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them,

Deu_7:2. If God cast them out, Israel must not take them in, no, not as tenants, nor tributaries, nor servants. Not covenant of any kind must be made with them, no mercy must be shown them. This severity was appointed, [1.] By way of punishment for the wickedness they and their fathers had been guilty of. The iniquity of the Amorites was now full, and the longer it had been in the filling the sorer was the vengeance when it came at last. [2.] In order to prevent the mischiefs they would do to God’s Israel if they were left alive. The people of these abominations must not be mingled with the holy seed, lest they corrupt them. Better that all these lives should be lost from the earth than that religion and the true worship of God should be lost in Israel. Thus we must deal with our lusts that was against our souls; God has delivered them into our hands by that promise, Sin shall not have dominion over you, unless it be your own faults; let not us them make covenants with them, nor show them any mercy, but mortify and crucify them, and utterly destroy them.

2. They must make no marriages with those of them that escaped the sword,

Deu_7:3, Deu_7:4. The families of the Canaanites were ancient, and it is probable that some of them were called honourable, which might be a temptation to the Israelites, especially those of them that were of least note in their tribes, to court an alliance with them, to ennoble their blood; and the rather because their acquaintance with the country might be serviceable to them in the improvement of it: but religion, and the fear of God, must overrule all these considerations. To intermarry with them was therefore unlawful, because it was dangerous; this very thing had proved of fatal consequence to the old world (Gen_6:2), and thousands in the world that now is have been undone by irreligious ungodly marriages; for there is more ground of fear in mixed marriages that the good will be perverted than of hope that the bad will be converted. The event proved the reasonableness of this warning: They will turn away thy son from following me. Solomon paid dearly for his folly herein. We find a national repentance for this sin of marrying strange wives, and care taken to reform (Ezr_9:1-15, 10; and Neh. 13), and a New Testament caution not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, 2Co_6:14. Those that in choosing yokefellows keep not at least within the bounds of a justifiable profession of religion cannot promise themselves helps meet for them. One of the Chaldee paraphrases adds here, as a reason of this command (Deu_7:3), For he that marries with idolaters does in effect marry with their idols.

3. They must destroy all the relics of their idolatry,

Deu_7:5. Their altars and pillars, their groves and graven images, all must be destroyed, both in a holy indignation against idolatry and to prevent infection. This command was given before, Exo_23:24; Exo_34:13. A great deal of good work of this kind was done by the people, in their pious zeal (2Ch_31:1), and by good Josiah (2Ch_34:3, 2Ch_34:7), and with this may be compared the burning of the conjuring books, Act_19:19.

II. Here are very good reasons to enforce this caution.

1. The choice which God had made of this people for his own,

Deu_7:6. There was such a covenant and communion established between God and Israel as was not between him and any other people in the world. Shall they by their idolatries dishonour him who had thus honoured them? Shall they slight him who had thus testified his kindness for them? Shall they put themselves upon the level with other people, when God had thus dignified and advanced them above all people? Had God taken them to be a special people to him, and no other but them, and will not they take God to be a special God to them, and no other but him?

2. The freeness of that grace which made this choice. (1.) There was nothing in them to recommend or entitle them to this favour. In multitude of the people is the king’s honour,

Pro_14:28. But their number was inconsiderable; they were only seventy souls when they went down into Egypt, and, though greatly increased there, yet there were many other nations more numerous: You were the fewest of all people, Deu_7:7. The author of the Jerusalem Targum passes too great a compliment upon his nation in his reading this, You were humble in spirit, and meek above all people; quite contrary: they were rather stiff-necked and ill-natured above all people. (2.) God fetched the reason of it purely from himself, Deu_7:8. [1.] He loved you because he would love you. Even so, Father, because it seemed good in thy eyes. All that God loves he loves freely, Hos_14:4. Those that perish perish by their own merits, but all that are saved are saved by prerogative. [2.] He has done his work because he would keep his word. “He has brought you out of Egypt in pursuance of the oath sworn to your fathers.” Nothing in them, or done by them, did or could make God a debtor to them; but he had made himself a debtor to his own promise, which he would perform notwithstanding their unworthiness.

3. The tenour of the covenant into which they were taken; it was in short this, That as they were to God so God would be to them. They should certainly find him, (1.) Kind to his friends,

Deu_7:9. “The Lord thy God is not like the gods of the nations, the creatures of fancy, subjects fit enough for loose poetry, but no proper objects of serious devotion; no, he is God, God indeed, God alone, the faithful God, able and ready not only to fulfil his own promises, but to answer all the just expectations of his worshippers, and he will certainly keep covenant and mercy,” that is, “show mercy according to covenant, to those that love him and keep his commandments” (and in vain do we pretend to love him if we do not make conscience of his commandments); “and this” (as is here added for the explication of the promise in the second commandment) “not only to thousands of persons, but to thousands of generations – so inexhaustible is the fountain, so constant are the streams!” (2.) Just to his enemies: He repays those that hate him, Deu_7:10. Note, [1.] Wilful sinners are haters of God; for the carnal mind is enmity against him. Idolaters are so in a special manner, for they are in league with his rivals. [2.] Those that hate God cannot hurt him, but certainly ruin themselves. He will repay them to their face, in defiance of them and all their impotent malice. His arrows are said to be made ready against the face of them, Psa_21:12. Or, He will bring those judgments upon them which shall appear to themselves to be the just punishment of their idolatry. Compare Job_21:19, He rewardeth him, and he shall know it. Though vengeance seem to be slow, yet it is not slack. The wicked and sinner shall be recompensed in the earth, Pro_11:31. I cannot pass the gloss of the Jerusalem Targum upon this place, because it speaks the faith of the Jewish church concerning a future state: He recompenses to those that hate him the reward of their good works in this world, that he may destroy them in the world to come.

Bible Inconsistencies Debunked

I recently was referred to a website that’s purpose was to try to show inconsistencies in the Bible as a way of saying that the Bible shouldn’t be believed.  I will try to debunk their claims by offering some explainations (my comments are in red):

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn’t created until the fourth day.  The light was created on the 1^st day and it was not the sun.  The light that was created was probably the same kind of light that will illuminate the new heaven and the new earth in paradise spoken of in Revelation 21:22.  Before the creation of the light spoken of in Genesis 1:3-5, there was “darkness” and the introduction of this light did separate the darkness.  The sun was created on the 4^th day and so were the seasons and the stars and the galaxies. 

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later. In the preceding passages from Genesis Chapter 2 it is important to understand that Gen 2 is not a chronological re-telling of creation.  Chapter 2 is a recapitulation in a condensed fashion regarding creation, but the main focus is on the creation of Woman which happened on the 6^th day.  The creation of woman for man as a suitable help-mate (one who corresponds to man) was so important that she gets a special recording of her creation.  This is also where God created the institution of heterosexual marriage – God’s 1^st and most basic human institution. 

GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)  Childbirth was not considered a sin.  It was, however, something that would make you ceremonially unclean and therefore unable to come into the presence of God at theTemple or Tent of Meeting.  God required holiness of body (as much as humanly possible) when one was to enter into worship; any form of uncleanness such as: emissions of semen, blood, contact with a dead body, oozing skin diseases, or other bodily deformities would exclude one temporarily from coming into the presence of The Holy God.

GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.) God was not displeased with any of His creation, but he did say that it wasn’t good that man should be alone and that is why he created woman.  Notice that when God created a helper for Adam that he created a woman and not another man.  Men and women were created for each other and they form one flesh when they come together this makes them both complete.  They were also commanded to “be fruitful and multiply” as were the animals and fish and birds.  Nowhere in the Scriptures does it ever say that a man’s counterpart should be of his own gender.  Nowhere either does Scripture say that homosexuality is even close to an acceptable sexual arrangement.  Homosexuality is ALWAYS defined and spoken of in Scripture as a deviation from God’s original plan and as an abomination in the sight of God.