Mike, Author at Renew-Your-Mind.org

About the Author

Humans May Have Originated In Israel

Oh really? Hmmm…

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101227/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_ancient_teeth

Of course we don't place too much of our faith on the newspaper, although it is interesting to see how things unfold. NOte that they are dating it according to the level of soil the tooth was found in.

Many of you know by now that I don't care too much whether we're a young earth or an old earth – both are interesting but miss the point – and the point is: What have you done to serve the Kingdom today?

God bless

How Did We Get the Bible

Christian Apologetics , The Bible

Who Decided What Would Be In The Bible?

How did the Bible get 'canonized'?

The 'canon' is a term that refers to the ‘standard,’ or ‘rule.’ The early church fathers, in an effort to preserve the integrity of the ancient writings and the doctrines of the Church, 'canonized' the books that were recognized as 'inspired' by God. When the writings were ‘canonized,’ this simply means that the church accepted them as the ‘official’ documents that were prescribed by God. It is important to realize that they were not simply ‘appointed’ as official, but that they had been recognized for some time by the majority of the Church at the time as the inspired word of God and used as such. The canon simply documents this recognition.

The Old Testament was known (essentially) as three 'books', the Law (Genesis to Deuteronomy), the Prophets (Joshua through 2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the 12 'minor' prophets), and the Writings (the remainder of the OT books.) These books were confirmed by Christ and the early Church fathers as they referred to them with comments such as 'It is written' or 'God says…'. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls included every book of the Old Testament except Esther, indicating an acceptance of them as scripture from the first Century A.D.

Generically, the New Testament canon includes those writings which were most universally accepted by the majority of the early church. The most controversial (those which were adhered to by a few sects, but not a majority) were eventually culled out of the official 'list'. Several books, including Revelation, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, were included by the end of the second century.

Four key questions were considered by the Council Of Carthage (397 A.D.) that declared the official canon of the New Testament church:

1) Is the writing Apostolic? If an Apostle either was credited with authorship, or with direct influence (as with Mark and Luke) the canonicity was generally assumed. This is not a rigid requirement; for example, the book of Hebrews' authorship is still under question.

2) Is the writing Orthodox? If the writings conform with the early understandings of the faith, and do not obviously contradict another accepted canonical writing, it is generally accepted.

3) Is the writing universal? Writings that seem specific to a certain group, and apparently not intended for the Church as a whole were generally not considered to be appropriate to a canon of the Universal Church.

4) Has the writing had influence over the Church over time? The proven ability for the writing to provide guidance, sustenance and inspiration for the Church is expected.

Understanding these requirements show that the writings were not simply 'chosen', but proven to be inspired by their 'intrinsic authority and constant usage.' (Adapted from Zondervan's Handbook To The Bible.)

What About The 'Apocrypha'?

Even after the official canonization, there was some debate going on. In ~385 A.D., the ancient Church father Jerome developed a version of the Bible that included the books of the Apocrypha, although he later disavowed them as canonical, in his 'Vulgate' Bible. In 1545 the Council of Trent declared the Vulgate Bible the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. The protestant movement sided with Jerome, who by then had separated the Apocrypha from the remainder.

The Bible Is Reliable

Christian Apologetics , The Bible

How Do We Know That The Bible We Have Today Is Reliable?

The best way to consider the acceptance of the documents are to think of them in terms of evidence. Simon Greenleaf was a professor of Law at Harvard University in the nineteenth century, and established himself as a premier authority on the rules of evidence. His three volume work on the rules of evidence is still a standard used by lawyers today. He wrote a treatise on the admissibility of the four Gospels, and concluded that the "competence of the New Testament documents would be established in any court of law." In short, according to one of the most prestigious experts on the admissibility of documents in a court of law, the Bible is able to withstand the scrutiny and be accepted as reliable evidence.

Utilizing these rules of evidence, Ewen makes the case that the New Testament documents pass the following tests: Admissibility and Authenticity of the Evidence (the manuscripts) as determined by their age, quality and quantity, care in their preservation, and location, timing and motive of their writers. Corroborating Evidence is then analyzed, including archaeological evidences, results of scientific papyrology studies, and comparison of other similarly dated historical documents. Finally, upon passing these tests, the documents are then subjected to 'Cross Examination', assuring that the documents are not internally or externally contradictory, that the writers have established credibility, (that the message is proven by extra-biblical sources)

In summary, this investigation results in a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, that 1) Jesus lived approximately 2000 years ago; 2) Jesus died on the cross; and 3) Jesus rose from the dead. (Adapted from Faith On Trial, Pamela Binnings Ewen.)

How do we know that they were copied correctly through the ages?

Two ways. First, in antiquity, the role of a scribe was very prestigious. The role of a scribe is that of a "professional copier." But it goes far beyond what we consider 'copying' today. Many procedural details were followed to assure reliability in the copying of these Manuscripts. Each scribe had a personal identification sign, in which his reputation as a scribe was built. A second set of eyes served as 'correctors.' Severe penalties were imposed for carelessness. Even the numbers of letters were counted, to assure that the copy was as close to the original as could be. We can be assured that the method of transmission through the ages by scribes was reliable.

Second, recently discovered manuscripts from antiquity are nearly identical to the copies we have today. Until the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' were discovered in the caves of Qumran in 1946, the oldest known manuscript of the entire Bible was dated about A.D 900 (the Aleppo Codex.) "The books of the Old Testament found in the Dead Sea Scrolls written approximately one thousand years before the Aleppo Codex were found to be almost identical to those of the Aleppo Codex." (Pamela Binnings Ewen, Faith On Trial, pg 33.) Discrepancies of syntax were all that was found (for example – color vs. colour.) This is breathtaking evidence that the transmission of the Holy Writings have been immaculately preserved over millennia.

In addition, many first person accounts, claims of eyewitnesses, combined with the likelihood of the early dating of the Gospels, provide the suggestion that eyewitnesses could have read the Gospels, and therefore been available to dispute them if there were errors. No record of these disputes exist. In addition, these people could have brought dishonor and pressure upon the believers, who would likely not have adopted beliefs that they knew were false.

Finally, there is sufficient 'political' reason to trust the transmission of the stories. Knowing that Caligula became Emperor of Rome in 37 A.D., and that he demanded sole worship of himself, even of the Jews, it would be life-threatening to promote the worship of someone else. This gives credence to the consideration that the early Church would not have promoted a doctrine that they knew to be wrong (seeing a resurrected body would certainly embolden a person's beliefs!) All of the Gospel writers suffered greatly, as did Paul. Most were killed for their beliefs.

What is the Status Of The Documentation?

The original manuscripts (the autographa) are lost, but there are enough copied manuscripts in existence, some written during the lifetimes of some eye-witnesses to the Resurrection and the ministry of the Apostles, that the credibility of the transmission is assured. This simple fact is astounding when compared to the evidence of other copied manuscripts from antiquity (indeed, there are NO originals of ANY manuscripts from antiquity!) For example, there are only 643 manuscripts of the Iliad in existence, which is similar in length to the New Testament. There are over 25,000 pieces of evidence for the Bible, and they are all so similar that they are considered to be identical.

Can We Trust These Documents If They Weren't Written In 'Real Time'?

Some believe that this gap of ~50 – 100 years before things were written down automatically destroys their reliability. They assert that legends may have developed in lieu of fact, and therefore we have no basis in trusting that the manuscripts are valid. There are essentially three items to consider when contemplating this issue:

1) The transmission of fact and tradition when eyewitnesses are still alive. Personal interpretation and adjustment is easy to do if the writer or eyewitnesses are not around, but much more difficult if you are possibly subject to correction or ridicule from them. With the Gospels as close as 50 years after the death of Christ, it is conceivable that many of these eyewitnesses were still alive, as well as Peter and Mark and Paul and many of the first generation church leaders (such as Polycarp and Papias, who were direct disciples of the Apostle John.)

In addition, evidence of the the introduction of the common 'heresies' (distortion of original doctrine/orthodoxy) did not begin until ~200 A.D., with the Gnostic heresy and others. (Indeed, this is one reason the Church fathers formalized the canon.)

2) The incredible similarity of the disparate documents. When we consider the emphasis on perfection that the scribes – think of them as 'human copying machines' – had (remember that their livelihood and reputation relied on their quality of work – not to mention the seriousness they took to transmitting what they believed to be the 'word of God'), we can place faith in their work. We know that this quality exists when we find documents, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, that were written approx. 1000 years later than some earlier documents, and found to be practically identical.

In addition, when the various manuscripts are compiled with their various insignificant 'disparities' (akin to spelling color as 'colour' – and 'error' that does not changing the meaning) we can compile the original. Consider this exercise: If I write a letter to a friend, and then give it to 10 different people to copy, they each may make an error here or there, but they all won't make the SAME error. Because of this, someone could easily determine what the original letter said from these ten copies. For example, 9 of them may spell my name right (Sutherland,) while one may spell it wrong (Southerland). It would be a proper assumption for my friend, when he sees the 9 vs. the 1, that my original had the spelling sans 'o'.

3) The relatively short period of time when compared to other 'trusted' pieces of antiquity. The Old Testament books are generally considered reliable especially because of the previous examples. New Testament documents are also, but an additional comparison of known and trusted pieces of antiquity aid in conveying trust (we should not hold these Biblical documents to any further doubt than we do other accepted manuscripts – this would be a double standard of the rules of evidence in antiquity!) Consider the following comparisons of documents and their timing:

Biblical Works of Antiquity

Work	Author/Lifespan	Written	Period Between Event and Writing	Earliest Extant Manuscript	Period Between Event and Manuscript
Gospel of Matthew	Matthew / ~0-70? A.D.	~50-70 A.D.	< 50 years	ca. 200	< 150 years
Gospel of Mark	Mark / ~15-90? A.D.	~65-70 A.D.	< 50 years	ca. 225	< 200 years
Gospel of Luke	Luke / ~10-80? A.D.	~60-75 A.D.	< 50 years	ca. 200	< 200 years
Gospel of John	John / ~10-100? A.D.	~90-110 A.D.	< 80 years	ca. 130	< 100 years
Pauline Epistles	Paul / ~0-65? A.D.	~50-65 A.D.	~20-30 years	ca. 200	< 200 years

Secular Works of Antiquity

Work	Author/Lifespan	Written	Period Between Event and Writing	Earliest Extant Manuscript	Period Between Event and Manuscript
War of the Jews	Josephus / ~37-100? A.D.	~80 A.D.	~10-300 years	ca. 950	~900-1200 years
Antiquities	Josephus / ~37-100? A.D.	~95 A.D.	~30-300 years	ca. 1050	~1000-1300 years
Annals	Tacitus / ~56-120? A.D.	~100-120 A.D.	~30-100 years	ca. 850	~800-850 years
History	Herodotus / ~485-425? B.C.	~430-425 B.C.	~50-125 years	ca. 900	~1400-1450 years
History	Polybius / ~200-120? B.C.	~150 B.C.	~20-70 years	ca. 950	~1100-1150 years
	Aristotle	~364-322 B.C.	N/A	1100 A.D.	~1400 years
	Caesar	100-44 B.C.	N/A	900 A.D.	~950 years

Adapted from Willams; Are The Biblical Documents Reliable?; http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html; 4-03

It is clearly evident that the Biblical documentation is better documented than many accepted secular works. To accept secular works, while holding Biblical documentation to a different standard is unfair. Lets look at some summary information regarding what is in existence regarding Biblical documentation:

Information Regarding Extant Biblical Manuscripts

Manuscripts	Biblical Reference	Description	Dated	Further Info
Chester Beatty Manuscript	Four Gospels, Acts		~225 A.D.
Codex Vaticanus	Majority of OT and NT	Probably the oldest extant vellum manuscript, believed to have been commissioned by Constantine. Added to the Vatican library in 1448. Also known as 'Codex B'. Missing are portions of Genesis, Psalms and Hebrews, the entire books of I and II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Revelation and the books of the Maccabees.	~325 A.D.	Scholarly Summary Encyclopedia Info
Codex Sinaiticus	Majority of OT and NT	Contains the oldest known complete copy of the NT (also contains part of the OT.) Discovered at a monastery at Mt. Sinai in 1844.	~350 A.D.

Information Regarding The Dating Of The Gospels

Gospel	Consideration / Artifact	Date	Significance	Further Info / References
Matthew	Magdalen Fragments – Pieces of papyrus from Matthew 26.	A.D. 66 (latest)	Indicates that the gospel was written no later than 36 years after Jesus' death.	Eyewitness To Jesus CRI Time Mag
Mark	Qumran 7Q5, a dead sea scroll containing the Gospel of Mark	A.D.68 (latest)	The caves were abandoned in A.D. 68, giving us an outside date of the Gospel of Mark
Luke	P4 Fragment – Papyrus that is similar in style to the Magdalen Fragments	~ A.D. 66	Assuming the similarity to the Magdalen Fragments, again provides us with an outside date for the Gospel of Luke
John	St John Papyrus P-52 (aka John Rylands Greek 457)	~A.D. 125 (latest)	While conservatively dated after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, it references items not in existence after the destruction, indicating a reasonable belief that it was perhaps written before A.D. 70
General	No Gospel mentions either the stoning death of James the brother of Jesus (which is mentioned by Josephus in Antiquities – 93 A.D), or the deaths of Peter or Paul.	N/A	Indicates a reasonable assumption that the latest date of the Gospels must be 93 A.D.	Faith On Trial Pg 40 Josephus

Clearly, there is sufficient reason to believe that the evidence we have for the Bible is as good, indeed much better than required to believe that the documents are valid. Finally, lets consider the esteemed opinion of Sir Frederick Kenyon, who was the director of the British Museum, and who expresses the amount of trust in the conveyance of the scriptures through time as follows:

"The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established." (Kenyon; The Bible And Archaeology; pg 288)

How Do We Know The Bible Is Inspired?

Christian Apologetics , The Bible

How Do We Know The Bible Is Inspired?

The claim of inspiration is really quite outrageous. A visual that comes to mind is God dictating, and a 'scribe' writing down word for word what God intended to be revealed to the world through time. This image, while intriguing yet silly at the same time, is not exactly what happened. Make no mistake, the writers wrote what God wanted them to write:

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:20-21

Inspiration involves two actors: God and man. This is not to say that the men were inspired, similar to the way Mozart wrote 'inspirational' music, but rather that God utilized men to produce an inspired product. The concept of 'inspiration' is described by J. I. Packer thusly:

"Scripture is not only man's word – the fruit of human thought, premeditation, and art – but also and equally God's word, spoken through man's lips or written with man's pen. In other words, Scripture has a double authorship, and man is only the secondary author; the primary author, through whose initiative, prompting, and enlightenment, and under whose superintendence each human writer did his work, is God the Holy Spirit."

J. I Packer; "The Inspiration of the Bible"; The Origin Of The Bible; Philip Wesley Comfort editor (pg 30)

Some retort that the claim of inspiration can only be attributed to the Old Testament Scriptures, since they were the 'Scripture' of Jesus' time. But we must understand the attitude of the Apostles and the Early Church. Peter, in remarks referring to the letters of Paul, attribute to them an origin that is from God, and offers a warning in their misuse:

…just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15b-16

The inspiration of the Scriptures is evident in several ways:

1) The Miraculous Design. As we learned earlier, the Bible is a very complex collection of writings. It was not written by one person, but over 40, from 3 different continents, in three languages! All of these writings were accomplished over a period of over 1500 years! When one considers the unity of purpose, the continuity of the content and the fulfilled prophecy (both described in more detail below), the Bible stands legions above any other so-called 'sacred text'. It cannot be considered the invention of one man, or of a conspiracy of men. The first writers had no idea what would be written later. The later writers had nothing to gain from making up any stories. The Bible's incredible preservation through the years, proven by the discovery of thousands and thousands of manuscripts and fragments, all displaying the virtual perfection of transmission, would be expected of any book that the Creator would provide for us to be the carrier of His message.

2) The Continuity Of The Content. The Bible focuses on one subject: The establishment of God's authority, and the redemption of man. This can be thought of as God's message to us, to bring us back together with Him. The Old Testament begins the drama and describes the 'fall' of man, and describes our need (but utter lack of ability to accomplish on our own) for redemption. The holiness of God is presented, which is contrasted to the utter failure of mankind to qualify for joining with God. The long history of mankind's failing struggle to make peace is proof that we need supernatural intervention for our redemption. The New Testament describes the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies of a redeemer.

3) Fulfilled Prophecy. God has told us that fulfilled prophecy is one way that we will know something is from Him.

You may say to yourselves, 'How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?' The Bible tells us: "If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken…" Deuteronomy 18:21-22a

The Bible itself is replete with evidence of confirmed prophecy (over 600!). Consider these two famous examples:

Prophecy	Fulfillment
[The Lord] says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt," and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid." Isaiah 44:28	When the prophet spoke these words, both the temple and Jerusalem were intact and strong. 'Cyrus' was an unknown entity to them at the time. 100 years later, in 586 B.C., King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon destroyed both. In 537 B.C., King Cyrus of Persia decreed that the Jews be released to rebuild (a stone cylinder was found confirming Cyrus' decree!)
"I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves. They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock. Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets… Ezekiel 26:3b-5a	In ~550 B.C. when this prophecy was written, Tyre was one of the most powerful sea ports in the world. In 332 B.C., Alexander the Great began a siege of the island city (that was inhabited due to the destruction by Nebuchadnezzar, also as prophesied). Today, the ancient mainland of Tyre remains flat as a rock, used by fishermen to dry nets!

Another amazing example is the prophecy concerning the Jewish people:

Prophecy	Fulfillment
…if you do not obey the Lord you God and do not carefully follow all His commands and decrees…all these curses will come upon you and overtake you…the Lord will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other. Deuteronomy 28:15bc, 64a	The history of the Jewish people is most unique. There have been many races of people who have held positions of power and influence in the world, but none share such amazing changes of fortunes as the Jews. Their history (Biblical AND extra-Biblical) show them both as conquerors and then slaves. The small portion of the world they currently occupy remains a focal point of world concern. What other race of people can you recall that has been dispersed, yet retained their heritage? World history has always referred to Jewish people as Jews, whether they were Polish Jews, Russian Jews, German Jews, etc. They uniquely maintained their culture despite being disbursed, as the Bible predicted in Deuteronomy. For a long time, the prediction of Ezekiel was embarrassing, and seemed impossible. NO ONE could have predicted that a World War would focus on this race, and result in their gathering together again in their homeland!
"I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." Matthew 24:2b "The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you…they will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you." Luke 19:43a, 44b
I dispersed them among the nations, and they were scattered through the countries…I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. Ezekiel 36:19a, 24

4) A 'Super Natural" Message. The Bible is unique in its message, in addition to the content described above. In no means does its message benefit any man or institution, as one might expect from a man-made document (indeed, this is one acid test for the other so-called 'sacred texts'. With a universal 'religious' nature, a natural means of manipulation would be to tap into this nature, and purport to have an answer for the masses, especially one that the particular 'human' writer can fulfill, for a 'price'!) But the Bible is different! It does not describe how mankind can redeem itself, as does Buddhism or Naturalism, or many other 'religions'. The Bible is unique in the message that God is indeed looking for us – and has provided a means to reach him that we cannot achieve ourselves! There is nothing to be paid, or practiced, only a trust in Him and His grace is required! Again, this message is unique among all 'religions' that promise a 'peace' that can be earned upon this earth, by human means.

So is the Bible 'Infallible'? Is it 'perfect', inerrant, exactly the way that God intended it to be, even in our newest translations? Christian orthodoxy maintains that the Scriptures were inerrant in the original. What exactly does this mean?

Every word of God is flawless; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him."

Proverbs 30:5

Wayne Gruden, author of Systematic Theology: An Introduction To Biblical Doctrine, defines inerrancy thusly:

The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact. There are several key messages that need to be understood about inerrancy. 1) The Bible must be interpreted as it was intended. We should read allegory as allegory, statement of fact as statement of fact, description as description, etc etc. When we say that we take the Bible 'literally', we mean that we interpret what it says as it was intended to be interpreted. For example, when Jesus says "I am the vine and you are the branches", we do not interpret the Bible as saying that Christ has transformed Himself into a plant and expects us to as well! (While painfully obvious, that example is a good reminder to those who claim to 'woodenly' take Scripture literally, to the detriment on what was meant in the writing!) 2) Perspective of original authorship must be allowed. To claim that a portion of Matthew's gospel conflicts with say, Mark's gospel because they may have documented an instance in a manner that appears contradictory. We must remember that it is the intent of the passage that meant to be brought across. Most of the so-called 'errors' of the Bible can be attributed to improper interpretation, or of a mistaken (more on interpretation of the Bible later.) 3) Orthodoxy does not insist that the modern 'translations' are inerrant. Does this mean that they are 'wrong'? What it means is that the Bible is meant to be studied seriously, to determine the intent of the Creator is His originals. A cursory reading of the Bible is likely to lead to errant interpretation. When studying the Bible, with the intent of truly determining God's word and will, we must make a diligent effort of pursuit, and work to understand the intent, syntax, context, and history of the passages and translations (more on translations of the Bible later.)

Finally, regarding the inspiration and the Bible, we must remember God's edict to us to follow when considering the Bible, and His purpose of giving it to us:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:14-16

The Bible is Unique

Christian Apologetics , The Bible

The Bible is without a doubt the most amazing, unique, and influential book in history

In fact, it is wrong to think of the Bible as just one book. It is actually a collection of books, written over a huge period of time in many different locations and by dozens of people.

For a moment, consider that it is not a book that claims supernatural authorship, and approach an open minded survey of it similar to any survey of any object of antiquity. Since we cannot prove that the Bible is 'inspired' by using Biblical passages (that would be using circular arguments!) we can begin by proving that it is a legitimate and trustworthy manuscript, and THEN consider what it says. Once it is proven reliable, in fact it will be proven MORE reliable than any other ancient manuscript, we can assume that it is worthy of serious consideration of its subject matter.

So, consider this assertion: an honest skeptic or agnostic cannot honestly doubt the impact and uniqueness of the Bible. In fact, the noted French skeptic Rousseau considered the possibility of the Bible being an elaborate hoax and sums up the obvious conclusion as thus:

“I must confess to you that the majesty of the Scriptures astonishes me; the holiness of the evangelists speaks to my heart and has such striking characters of truth, and is, moreover, so perfectly inimitable, that if it had been the invention of men, the inventors would be greater than the greatest heroes!” As quoted by Josh McDowell, A Ready Defense; pg 406

We have previously discussed the logic of a Creator leaving us a record of His intentions. If the Bible is truly this record, it should logically stand up to the greatest scrutiny, and provide incredibly insightful instruction. One must pursue the study of the Bible and its teachings with his presuppositions set aside, and seek the Truth, based upon the evidence alone and not any preconceived notions. With this in mind, this web is developed to provide basic understanding of the Bible and its history, so that we can consider some basic questions about the Bible, see if it is worthy of our study, and whether it is consistent with what we might expect of a supposed 'revelation' from God.

What is it that makes the Bible so special?

Lets begin with what makes the Bible unique. Remember our discussion about the Bible's uniqueness when we described how we can know that God exists. For a refresher:

More than just any other book, even any other 'religious' book, the Bible is singularly unique. It is neither a single book, nor is it written by one person, as are most 'religious' texts. It is a collection of 66 books that were written by 40 or more different authors in three different languages, in 3 different continents. These books were written over a period of about 1600 years. The authors represent society at large. They were not just scholars and preachers, but they also ranged from common folk such as shepherds, doctors, government officials, fishermen, and tax collectors, to Kings. There are many styles of journalistic method involved, including history, poetry, government records, dialogue, parables, sermons, prophecy, letters and religious instruction. The Bible has been translated into over 1200 different languages or dialects. Despite this huge diversity of history, there is one central theme of the whole collection of writings: that God loves us and has a plan for our lives.

The only other 'competing' scripture (in the sense that it claims to be the 'word of God'), the Koran, was written by ONE man, and has exponentially less evidence in antiquity, and many other aspects that raise eyebrows for a book that claims 'divine inspiration.' At a glance, one can tell the vast differences between the Bible and the Koran – but more on that later.

To summarize, the Bible is unique in it's claims, unparalleled in documentation, miraculously transmitted through the ages, clear and unequivocal in its message from God, and capable of changing lives.

The following web pages will assist you in a little more history and evidence, so you can begin your journey of understanding the most amazing book in the history of the world. And for the sake of Christianity, the Gospels bear the ultimate importance, because they declare the words and works of Jesus and include the cornerstones of the Christian faith. Regarding these, we can be assured that:

"Archaeological, historical, and documentary evidence, scientific and medical evidence, evidence presented by the arts, evidence of statistical probabilities – all types of evidence exist to prove much more than a sufficient case that the testimony of the writers of the Gospels is true." Pamela Binnings Ewen, Faith On Trial, pg 11.

By keeping this in mind and honestly and openly studying the evidence provided in this site and elsewhere, we can rationally conclude that the Bible is what it claims to be…the written documentation of the actions of God toward mankind, and was provided by Him for us to study and determine the will of the Creator.

Where Is God?

Christian Apologetics , Essays

Why Does God Hide? Why Doesn't He Just Make Himself Obvious to Us?

The questions about evidences usually come about because some people just 'cannot believe' unless there is 'clear evidence.'

But consider this – what would it take for you to believe? Would it take a miracle, or a divine announcement? I submit to you that anything that is declared evidence for God would not convince the skeptic. A medical miracle would be explained away (this happens all the time.) A divine announcement would be written off as hysteria (as has happened in the past.) Virtually everything presented as evidence is accounted for by natural means, by someone who only believes in 'natural means.'

Perhaps we should contemplate how God would choose to reveal Himself, and search for this, instead of making our demands of evidence upon God, because

"..the world in its wisdom did not know [God.]" 1 Corinthians 1:21b

In other words, how would an Omnipotent Being reveal Himself to finite beings? For honest pursuit, we must make sure that our presuppositions are not clouding our thought processes. We've discussed presuppositions previously – these are the pre-conceived notions we bring with us that can get in the way of clear and impartial thought and analysis. No where are presuppositions more significant than in the ways we view the most important things in our life. If I assume that I can never know for sure if God exists, I will likely look skeptically upon all 'evidences' for God. An assumption that the 'evidences' proposed to me are false does not necessarily make them false, just like wishful thinking doesn't bring about the wish. So in short, an open mind with a goal in mind is required for objective analysis of the evidences that God has claimed to have provided us.

The issue of 'Divine Hiding' has been asked of God many times in the Bible. Even Jesus was admonished to announce His position to the world by His brothers (John 7:3, 4b) and also by His disciples (John 14:22.)

"Jesus' brothers said to Him, "You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do…Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world."" John 7:3, 4b

"Then Judas…said," But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not the the world?"" John 14:22

His answer gives us a clue into the mystery of God's 'hiding:

"If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me." John 14:23a, 24.

Christ claimed to be answering the question of Divine Hiding for God, as well as for Himself. The answer is not what one might expect. We would perhaps hope that He would have answered something to the effect of "I must hide so that you may pass the test of faith" or "I'm not hiding, I'm very obvious" or maybe even "OK, I will make my miracles and signs obvious to every man so everyone knows I am God." But no. Instead He gave us a mysterious statement speaking about OUR LOVE AND OBEDIENCE! WHAT HAS THAT TO DO WITH GOD'S HIDING??!!

When this clue is combined with other examples of Jesus' statements, perhaps the reason becomes more clear. To summarize what Christ's answers mean, consider the following assertion in our analysis of Jesus' answers:

– We ONLY get to know God if we allow Him to BE our God and Lord of our lives –

Just before Jesus made this cryptic answer to Judas, He gave another clue:

"Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him." John 14:21.

"Show myself to him" He said. This is a little more clear now. Is Jesus saying that if He is to be seen by us, we must love Him? Does this argument seem circular? By that, isn't it unfair to say in essence that "we won't find God unless we believe in God?" Absolutely not, when the rest of the situation is clear.

Consider this: Is the knowledge or acknowledgement that God exists what God wants us to know? Clearly, the answer is NO. A person could believe, or even know, that God exists, and still HATE God. So God is not interested only in our knowledge of Him. What He desires is a personal relationship – a filial relationship. With philosophical contemplation, we could understand that God is a First Cause, or a Source of Morality, or a Creator. But this intellectual assent does not cause or require personal interaction. Blaise Pascal clarified the point "God wishes to move the will rather than the mind. Perfect clarity would help the mind and hurt the will." God is not interested in simply being a point of knowledge.

God's purpose for having this personal relationship is to transform us to be more like Him

"For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." Ephesians 2:10

To reject God's means for evidence is to reject God's plans, and to in the end reject God. In this regard, it would be improper for God to force His will upon us…what is morally appropriate is for God to make His presence available to all of us, for us to pursue.

In Natural Theology, we have plenty of clues. From the discussion of the A-B-C's of God's existence, we see that, if our presuppositions are looking for God, God has left us many clues, from the Awareness and yearning inside each of us, the incredible Bible that is a book like no other book, and the Creation that simply cannot be explained with natural terms. With a God-focused pursuit, these 'evidences' pull us along the path to knowing God in a personal way.

In summary, we will truly know God when we are in a relationship with Him, and do as He asks us to. If we do not, we cannot expect to ever recognize God as obvious as the sun is shining.

We know that we have come to know him if we obey His commands.

1 John 2:3

Where Did God Come From?

Christian Apologetics , Essays

Where Did God Come From?

Why is there anything, instead of nothing?

One of the philosophical reasons to believe in God is the Cosmological Argument, which explains that everything must have a cause…and the initial cause for everything is a being which we call "God". Anything other than this explanation requires an infinite regress (essentially that everything has always existed) for which there is no evidence. Assuming one accepts the notion of a first cause, it begs the question, "what caused God?"

But the answer within the Cosmological Argument gives us the answer to this question also! By definition, God is the first event, sometimes known as the 'Prime Mover'. Therefore by this definition, God is uncaused. So the question 'Where did God come from?' is improper. It is like asking for a square circle, or a flat ball. Is it hard to accept? Yes. But does it make sense to us? Yes, in the sense that we intuitively know that there cannot be an infinite regress of events. SOMETHING had to be the first. There is nothing in nature that we see coming from nothing (despite the fifty dollar words some Naturalists throw around, like quantum fluctuations, etc.) It is just not practical. So what started it all off? Something outside of nature – something supernatural.

What's the alternative? If you don't want to believe in a Creator, you must either believe that something (indeed, everything!) came from nothing, OR you must believe that everything has always existed. NEITHER are reasonable, since they contradict everything observed. There is no evidence for it, in fact the evidence points toward a beginning (second law of thermodynamics), and evidence points to nothing coming from nothing (if someone has seen something come from nothing, I'd love to see it!) Therefore, it is REASONABLE to believe that there is a Creator!

While this philosophizing does not prove the God of Christianity, it does establish that the belief in a 'Prime Mover' is reasonable, based upon sound thinking formed from sound experience (the observations of cause and effect and the unreasonableness of infinite regress). Understanding this, the question now becomes: "What is the nature of this Prime Mover?"

Philosophical Proofs for God

Christian Apologetics , Essays

Philosophical Proofs for the Existence of God

Philosophical Proofs for the Existence of God We are of a culture that demands evidence, and despises contradiction and conjecture. And at first glance, the possibility that God exists seem may absurd. But an examination of some logical deductions prove that the existence of God is far from an illogical fantasy, and gives the thinking person more of a case to consider the God of Creation.

The following are ages old thought patterns pursued by eminent philosophers, scientists, skeptics and even atheists in a sincere attempt to answer this most important of questions. These arguments are displayed in a traditional logic / presupposition / conclusion format. A summary of the most effective follows:

The Argument of Evident Causality – St. Thomas in his Summa Theologica proposed five proofs of the existence of God, which come to the conclusion that there must be a God from Natural Theology, and can be summarized as follows:

Mankind’s experience in the world indicates that all things have a cause. Consideration of this fact leads us to the conclusion that ‘causes’ must continue in history back into infinity, but this is clearly not possible in practicality, so there must have been an ‘un-caused cause.’ This first cause is known as ‘God.’ And because nothing can be created by itself, there must be that which exists by itself. That which exists by itself is known as ‘God.’ Among the things that exist there is separation of value, indicating a rule by which to measure this value. That source of all value is known as ‘God.’ Finally, the reason for anything ‘existing’ instead of ‘not existing’ implies purpose – even things that appear to lack knowledge still have purpose, and act in accordance to a purpose beyond themselves. That purpose beyond all things is known as ‘God.’

Even Kant, who disagreed with the proposition that God could be proven by human reason, called these proofs “the oldest, the clearest, and the most accordant with the common reason of mankind.” These proofs succeed because they are clear and universal.

The Argument of Design – Perhaps the most reasonable argument, with all of creation literally at our fingertips. Where did it come from? How does it sustain itself? How do we fit in to the whole of creation? The argument for a Designer is as follows:

1) Every aspect of the universe displays an incredible amount of order, both in the things we can see and the way things react to each other. Think about the organs in your body – all working wonderfully for the sustaining of our live, perfectly tuned and connected. This axiom can be extended almost indefinitely, from the amount of oxygen in the air for us, to the food available for our bodies to consume, to the gravity keeping us on the ground, etc etc etc…

2) Either this order is the product of intelligent design, or random chance.

3) Chance is incapable to produce this magnitude of order.

4) Order comes from a designer – with a purpose for the order.

5) Therefore, the universe is the result of an intelligent designer.

The crux of this argument is the 3rd premise. It can be nothing more than wishful thinking to claim that chance could produce an intelligent, related design, much less from nothing. (Remember that old yarn about God and Darwin arguing about evolution, where Darwin claimed that time and energy could eventually produce a man from the dirt, and God said ‘Go for it.” As Darwin gathered up the dirt to apply time and energy to it, God said “Wait a minute, you go get your own dirt!”) It is silly to think that a believer in the creation allows themselves to be put on the defensive by the skeptic and asked to show proof in God, when the real proof should be provided by the skeptic in the form of evidence of chance providing order on this scale. And a little further about Darwin, remember that even an argument about survival of the fittest presupposes the arrival of the fit! Darwin and evolution never presume to explain the beginnings of the universe. Only cosmologists claim an answer for this one, with their big bang theory. More on that in the creation discussions.

The Argument from Consciousness – Intelligence seems to be different than inanimate matter. In other words, there is something different about the lump of carbon and other chemicals that make up my body, and the lumps of carbon and other chemicals found in nature (rocks, etc., even dead bodies with all the 'chemicals' there and in order.) This difference is intelligence, or consciousness. So intelligence is within the cosmos, yet the cosmos is not intelligent (self-aware.) So where did it come from? Lets try the logical stream

1) We experience the universe as intelligible. This experience we have intelligence.

2) Either the intelligible universe and the finite minds able to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or they arrived from blind chance.

3) Not blind chance.

4) Therefore the intelligible universe and the finite minds able to grasp it are the products of intelligence.

Closely related to the design argument, it is easy to see why mankind pursues the antithesis of statement 3. But blind chance is a lousy designer in experience. Has anyone seen intelligence 'created?' No. Can anyone explain it? Not without conjecture and a final belief in truth created accidentally. This by definition would not be truth then, would it? So how could anything that is produced by blind chance be trusted? Again, it is NOT irrational to believe in a Creator / God. "Is it not reasonable to conclude that life, mind and personality have their source in something living with a mind and personality?" David A. Noebel, Understanding the Times, pg 87

The Argument of Desire – An internal yearning for God? Surely that cannot be logical?! In fact it is clearly logical, and easy to understand, even for the skeptic (as long as he is searching for truth.) Lets try it out:

1) All the desires within us correspond to something that can fulfill the desire

2) But there is a desire within us in which nothing on earth seems to fulfill

3) Therefore something must exist outside of earth, time, and material that will satisfy this desire.

4) This something can only be what people refer to as ‘God,’ and a fulfillment (life) with Him forever.

At first glance this argument may seem silly, but upon further reflection it is clear. There are two types of desires: those that are natural, and those that are developed. Natural desires are for things such as food, sleep, knowledge, sex, friendship, beauty, etc. Developed desires are for things such as football games, licorice, Barbie dolls, a better job, etc. The former all people desire, the latter come from outside of us, from society, fiction, or preference. How could all people desire something that is never satisfied in this world? Don't believe it? Get that new car, you'll soon want a better one. Get that new job or love or whatever your heart desires, soon it won't satisfy. The yearning in our hearts never seems to be filled – what could it be leading us to? Is it illogical to assume that the Creator placed this desire within us to lead us to search for Him? I don't think so.

Does philosophy answer our questions? Of course not – we must be very careful when philosophizing. Someone once said that 'there is nothing so absurd that a Philosopher has not proposed it.' However, philosophy has a place in leading us to consider and examine our presuppositions, which is what Francis Bacon meant when he said “A little philosophy inclineth a man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s mind about to religion.”

Our Human Nature Needs God

Christian Apologetics , Essays

There is a God shaped vacuum in all of us Thomas Aquinas described the condition of mankind when he said “There is within every soul a thirst for happiness and meaning.” Since the dawn of time, mankind has pursued fulfillment of that thirst with everything imaginable. The existence of this personality trait in ALL cultures is perhaps the most telling reason for us to believe in God – not only that, but a God of Love (when we think of it this way, it becomes obvious, doesn’t it!) Without love in our lives, virtually all other successes pale and seem insignificant. This indicates a common denominator need in all humans, that would clearly be there if the assumption of the Creator of the Universe searching for us were true. He left in us an indicator of His character!!

We have what has been called ‘signals of transcendence’ within us, that point toward something beyond what we can see or explain (Peter Berger – Intellectuals Don’t Need God" And Other Modern Myths; Alister McGrath; pg 16). If a Maker has made man in His image, as Christianity proclaims, then it is not surprising that we would attempt to find our creator. Some of those indicators of another reality are described below:

Intuition – There is something about us, way deep inside, that causes us to consider that both we and the universe around us are products of God. Indeed, if a creator is drawing us near to Him, it would make sense that God Himself would have placed this awareness within each of us, creating a natural vacuum, or thirst for knowledge, that leads us to consider Him. Indeed, God explains to us that He has done just that:

"He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end… God does it so that men will revere Him." Ecclesiastes 3:11b, 14b.

Morality – The basis for morality has been a philosophical conundrum for ages. Immanuel Kant has summarized the issue: “Two things fill the mind with admiration and awe, the starry heavens above and the moral law within.” This is a ‘sense of ought’ that not only exists in all times and cultures, but drives each of us to a standard that we can only guess at where it comes from. We have a clear sense of obligation, each person does, whether we live in the United States or the remotest reaches of Africa. They may not all be the same beliefs and obligations, but their mere existence universally demands explanation. There can be no simple scientific answer for a base instinct that is the result of chemical reactions in the brain! We even try to pass laws to enforce our internal desires for justice and morality. We should not be surprised that our internal moral law reflects that of the law of God:

"Indeed, when Gentiles…do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves…since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them." Romans 2:14-15.

In short, in the most personal ways God has revealed Himself to us is through our very nature. Going beyond our existence in the first place, when we consider the nature of our beings we cannot trivialize the consideration that the desires we experience were set in motion for us to begin the search for the answer – namely our creator and His personal nature.

Indeed, in virtually every culture there is some sort of worship of a deity – once again proving the general desire in man to transcend himself and the surrounding and long for something much higher than himself and his surroundings. It appears to me to be no coincidence that the Bible itself does not spend much time trying to prove the existence of God – there is simply affirmation that God exists. This makes it kind of obvious, doesn't it??!!

While these arguments will not convince a committed skeptic, they clearly provide an objective basis for consideration, that there could be something more out there. Now we just need to find out exactly what that something may be…

Why Belief in God is as Easy as A B C

Christian Apologetics , Essays

Belief in God is as Easy as A-B-C!

Creator God If God does exist, then the study of God is by definition the most important endeavor a person can undertake. And for Christians required by God to provide a reason for our faith, it is essential for us to understand and be able to explain a clear basis for our faith in God’s existence.

So lets begin an active study of the existence of God, and what it means for us. Here we will study the REASONS FOR BELIEF in the CHRISTIAN GOD. In a different area we will contrast that with the beliefs in other Gods before we are done with our study.

SO TO BEGIN, I believe that there are three clear witnesses to the fact that the CHRISTIAN GOD exists, which are in front of us each day. For starters, by remembering that the belief in God is a BASIC belief, it is easy to start with the basics. So we need to…

Remember our ABC's:

Our AWARENESS, the BIBLE, and the CREATION

AWARENESS – Our own human nature (consciousness, moral fiber, etc) suggests to us that there must be something beyond ourselves. – we just ‘know’ in our ‘hearts’ that there is more to life than what we can see and touch. Many of us are good at putting this feeling aside or trying to fulfill the need with outside influences, philosophies, etc., but it always stays there, perpetually unfulfilled. No ‘purpose’ on this earth (money, sex, power) ever seems to fill that vacuum. Many people spend their entire lives striving to fulfill this need, but it always stays there, even after the accumulation of wealth or the fulfillment of personal goals. This ‘God shaped vacuum’ (as described by the eminent scientist Blaise Pascal) can only be filled by the relieving purposeful existence discovered when we understand our position with God, and when we become reconciled back to Him. Could it be that this longing within us is the result of God pulling us to Himself? Because this feeling is universal, it is the first of what is considered ‘general revelation’ from God.

The BIBLE – Our awareness leads us to look for God. The Bible is the evidence that God has left us, as a self-autographed documentation of His nature and His plans (this is the first of the ‘special revelations’ from God.) More than just any other book, even any other 'religious' book, the Bible is singularly unique. It is neither a single book, nor is it written by one person, as are most 'religious' texts. It is a collection of 66 books that were written by 40 or more different authors in three different languages, in 3 different continents. These books were written over a period of about 1600 years. The authors represent society at large. They were not just scholars and preachers, but they also ranged from common folk such as shepherds, doctors, government officials, fishermen, and tax collectors, to Kings. There are many styles of journalistic method involved, including history, poetry, government records, dialogue, parables, sermons, prophecy, letters and religious instruction.

The Bible has been translated into over 1200 different languages or dialects.

Despite this huge diversity of history, there is one central theme of the whole collection of writings: that God loves us and has a plan for our lives.

The Bible is most unique in its claim of Divine inspiration. Is it likely that the above facts of the Bible could have occurred by accident, or by some 'religious conspiracy?' Or must Divine inspiration and purpose must have occurred for the previously mentioned points to come together and to survive for thousands of years. Divine inspiration is a most outrageous claim, and it leaves no room for a gray area. Either the book is of God and deserves our careful study, or it is not and is an incredible and monumentally improbable hoax. Was it by accident that it has become the most influential book in the history of mankind?

The CREATION demands a Creator – One of the ‘general revelations’ about God surrounds us each day, as we see the miracles of creation and the evidence of a creator everywhere. Science can only explain or predict what might happen, but not why things happen (what exactly is an electron anyway and how did it get here?) Contrary to popular belief, evolution and the thought that the cosmos began from nothing are simply theories. They are not fact, and they are not as widely believed in academic circles as the general public thinks that they are. To the average non-believer struggling to get through each day, it is convenient (it fits into our self-worldview) to believe that there is a logical explanation for the creation so we don’t have to believe in a creator. But make no mistake, it was all placed here, with a purpose, by a Personal Creator.

Think about it for a minute, which makes more sense? 1) Everything in the cosmos either existed forever or came from NOTHING, that gasses evolved into light elements, and then into heavy elements. Next came the evolution of 'dead' elements into something alive, which finally mutated into a person who has the capability to eat, see, think, procreate and know right from wrong. (None of these steps, by the way, have been observed in nature, and in fact are contrary to known natural law – they are simply what 'must' have happened in an anti-theistic worldview.) OR is it perhaps easier to believe: 2) That Something created everything and shows us the evidence of its authorship in the amazing details, synergies and complexities of the cosmos and of life? Certainly both take an active choice (faith?) to believe, since there were no eyewitnesses (but would we believe the eyewitnesses anyway?) The answer to the question is usually based upon a person's pre-conceived notions, and sometimes upon a misinterpretation of scientific 'facts.' We must however use ALL of our faculties, our intuition and senses, to answer the question truthfully. It does not relieve our minds to accept mere scientific fact if we don't also answer the questions why and how. Between the choices above (and there are no other choices) I believe it is much easier to believe in a Creator.

To Summarize – With all the evidence for God that we’ve reviewed, we have seen that it is certainly not illogical to believe in God. In fact, It is clearly reasonable to believe that God exists, and has placed all the evidence needed within our reach for us to believe in Him, and to cause us to pursue Him. But the final commitment is ours – this is our free will. We know that FAITH is not blind, but informed and rational, indeed a PART of us, leading us (complemented by our emotion and desires) to acknowledge the existence of the Creator, and inflame the desire to know more about Him and His plans for us. And Thank God, He has revealed these to us as well!!

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9 Next »

All Posts by Mike

About the Author