Can You Trust the Bible part 2 Objections

Can you trust the Bible?

Here are some objections. Some of them I've heard personally.

One objection that I have been confronted with on more than one occasion is that there are so many versions of the Bible that who knows what it says or if it is even accurate anymore. Let me give my explanation for this.

Take the King James Version, and the New International Version for example. They are two of the most familiar English Bible versions. These two, and most of the others are simply translations. The translation process is very specific. Each translation goes back to a single, or very limited number of originals called manuscripts. The starting point is always the same. So then each translation is only a one step removed process from the earliest and best original manuscripts.

Probably the best examples of manuscripts are the Dead Sea scrolls. It has been suggested that these would disprove the Bible. It seems everyone is using them to prove their point of view. Whatever they teach us in the future, right now they give us an Old Testament book that is 1000 years older than the earliest manuscripts we had previously. The two versions are virtually identical. It is the book of Isaiah. The one you read in English, is a one-step direct translation process from that scroll. When you read Isaiah, in English, or whatever language, you can be assured that it is what Isaiah wrote when he wrote it.
As for the New Testament, scholars have literally thousands of partial manuscripts in addition to a smaller number of complete New Testaments. They are all hand written copies, of course, and all virtually identical.

There may be many (some would say too many) English versions of the Bible. But in almost all the cases, the text itself is very accurate when compared to the best manuscripts. So accurate that it is not far-fetched to say our English Bible or whatever language you use, is in fact what was actually said and taught or written.

These are examples of external evidence for the reliability of the Bible. The external evidence is very strong. I believe it’s accurate to say that there is no other ancient literature that compares with the Bible in this way.

Another objection is people who say you can’t take the Bible literally. This will be easy. We are coming up on Palm Sunday followed by the greatest Christian worldwide celebration, Easter. Both of these major Christian holidays are founded upon specifics of factual history, and prophecy. The prophecies were specific at the time they were given beforehand and fulfilled specifically in history.

There is a movement even within the church believe it or not, to deny predictive prophecy. Check out the Old Testament prophet Daniel who read another Old Testament prophet’s writing several decades earlier (Jeremiah) and interpreted it literally for his time (Daniel 9:2).
Yes, emphatically there are portions within the Bible that are difficult to understand. There are texts within the Bible that are figurative in language and meaning. And there are even portions that are a combination of both—especially for me. But there’s a gigantic leap from that to saying broadly “the Bible is not intended to be taken literally” as some do.
Like I said, this objection is very popular now, and repeated over and over again, but really nonsensical in substance.

Another point of confusion is from the media and modern scholarship. I watched the PBS documentary entitled something like, “How the Bible Came to Be”. I had to chuckle as I watched because of the way the show unfolded. Part of their show involved archaeology. Using some Egyptian archaeological finds as a baseline, they were successful in confirming biblical people and places. Score one for the Bible—again.
King David, for example as recently as 15-20 years ago was deemed mythological because there was no independent extra-biblical archaeological evidence whatsoever for him or his kingdom. What do you know; now there is. Secularists still debate whether he was the great king of the Bible, or just a tribal leader. (No debate here by the way.) But there is now concrete evidence of a king by the name of David. Why is this important? Mary, Joseph and of course, Jesus are descendants of “the house and lineage of David”.
But what made me chuckle was they were putting very current and convincing archaeological evidence in the documentary, but when they would interview biblical scholars, they would still reference a method of Bible interpretation called the higher critical method.

Now this means nothing to most people. It’s important because you are watching TV and a biblical scholar is explaining something with this terminology. The average viewer, church member knows nothing about this and assumes it is the normal way to understand the Bible. It may be for many classrooms and seminaries. But it is associated with a liberal view of interpretation that often denies even Jesus’ miracles. It is by no means the only method. This is internal evidence, which is not a strong form of evidence.

Call me out of touch, but what surprised me is that these scholars are still using that same method. It dates back to the early 1900’s for sure and probably earlier. I was first exposed to it almost 30 years ago in college.

I appreciated this program on PBS because it showed the Bible’s accuracy by recent archaeology, even though the talking heads (scholars) didn’t really shine with anything new.

The Bible can be trusted. And on one level, this is very comforting and assuring to the average person on the street. Much like many years ago my daughter was comforted by a fence I was building in our yard. When a train approached and it’s whistle sounded, frightened, she moved but only enough to be just inside the fence. The Bible is like a fence.

On another level, however, the realization that the Bible is reliable and trustworthy can, and should, cause a few sleepless nights. If it’s true, then what does that mean for me. It raises questions like, How do I know God? And, How can I be forgiven? Stay tuned.

Other objections people have are hypocrites in the church. Or the alleged wars and fights caused by Christians, or the worldwide imperialism, or the take-over of this country, etc. etc. At some point we all have to ask ourselves the hard question, are these excuses for not believing?

I’m not dodging the answer, but really there’s no end. One either has to start following the Richard Dawkins author of THE GOD DELUSION and embrace atheism, or admit skepticism, or believe.
That’s right, just believe. You're not "kissing your brains good-bye" in doing so.
You'll sleep better for it.

That’s my take on this, a poor part-time country preacher.