Assiniboia-Charleswood Community Church
760 Charleswood Rd, Winnipeg, MB (Map)

Is The Bible From God? Is It Reliable? 
II Tim 3:16; II Pet 1:20-21

INTRO

a) picture the following scenario. You are talking to somebody about Christianity and they start asking you some questions.
 

i) why do you believe in a heaven and a hell?
 

- you think about it for a moment and say, "Well, it's not because we can can use scientific tests to prove their existence, or because our five senses have experienced it. And it's not because human reason can figure out that such places exist. The reason we believe in a heaven and hell is because the Bible says they do."

ii) well, why do you believe that the purpose for which we are in existence is to bring glory to God? What makes you think you're right and that society is wrong?
 

- and again, you think about it for a moment and you say, "The reason we believe that our purpose for existence is to glorify God is because the Bible tells us that that is what it is."

iii) well, why do you believe that Jesus is the standard of truth and that anyone who disagrees with Him is wrong? "For the same reason. Because that is what the Bible tells us."

iv) well, why do you believe that the only way a person can be right with God and go to heaven is if they turn from their sin, submit their lives to the God who created them, and trust in Jesus' death to pay for their sins and don't trust in anything they can do? "Because the Bible tells us."

b) I think you're beginning to get the point. Much of what we believe is not the result of observations made by our five senses, nor is it something that human reason could conclude, nor is it something that is testable in a science lab - much of what we believe is because a book called the Bible tells us that certain things are true. In other words, all Christians have staked their life and their future upon the teaching of a book that is almost 2000 yrs old.

c) therefore, if you can destroy the credibility of the Bible, their whole faith comes crashing down. And so, where do you think Satan is going to focus his energies in trying to discredit Christianity? On trying to disprove the credibility of the Bible.
 

- and I find it very interesting that the first recorded words of Satan in Scripture are his statement to Eve in the garden of Eden. And he said, "Did God really say....?" He tried to create doubt in Eve's mind about the truthfulness and credibility of something God had said. And ever since that time, he has worked hard to undermine the credibility of the Bible through any means possible.

1. The Bible Under Attack

a) let me begin by giving you some of the ways that Satan has sought to undermine the credibility of the Bible. And as we go through these ways, we will see the things that we need to respond to as Christians in order to be certain that the Bible is credible, and thus, that Christianity is credible.

i) some attacks, believe it or not, have come from the church itself. The church, since its beginning has always struggled with being squeezed into the world's mold - of accepting whatever the world believes to be true at this present moment as truth. And so, instead of viewing the world and its current beliefs through the lens of the Bible, they view the Bible through the lens of what the world is presently believing. And it always results in them wanting to strip the Bible of its authority or credibility.
 

A) you remember that two weeks ago we talked about the period of the Enlightenment which started in the 1700's. With the rapid growth of scientific discovery, people began to believe that everything in the world could be explained by science and the human faculty of reason. But more than that, they also believed that all the problems of society could be solved by science and reason, and that all the questions of life could be answered by science and reason. In other words, they believed that we live in a closed universe in which every event must have a natural explanation. Therefore, because they saw a world that operated by observable natural laws, they concluded that God was not necessary to keep this universe running. But further, miracles or any supernatural event could not happen. Therefore, that meant that the Bible, which talked about God creating the universe, and that talked about a lot of miracles, must be full of errors. And they concluded that it was written by well meaning people who were greatly influenced by the superstition of their times.
 

- now, a large part of the church didn't like being made fun of by the intellectual community in the world. But more than that, they became convinced that these scientists and thinkers really had found truth. And they joined them in believing that the Bible was not inspired by God but that it was full of errors. And they set about to rid the Bible of what they now concluded were errors.

 

I) they either chopped out any passage in the Bible that talked about a miracle.

II) or they tried to make it mystical and to give it some symbolic meaning. Example. They said that Jesus didn't really rise from the dead, the disciples just imagined that He did. After all, the disciples were gripped by Messianic fever, and so, they aren't reliable reporters of what happened. No, the resurrection doesn't refer to a literal resurrection, it refers to the resurrection of hope in the hearts of the disciples.

 

- these theologians led a movement called neo-orthodoxy or liberalism, and they led many mainline churches into the acceptance of this teaching about the Bible.

B) but there was something else that a part of the church did. And it was affected by liberal theology as well as the Existential thinking that became more prevalent. They said that the Bible was not given to convey one specific meaning, therefore there was no correct interpretation. Rather, a passage could mean something for mean but could mean something totally different for someone else. In other words, you were not to try and find out what the author of that passage meant when he wrote it, you were to find out what it means to you.

C) something else happened. This century has become known for its movements. There was the women's liberation movement, and then there has been the movement that has pushed for "sexual freedom", and then the whole movement related to homosexuality. And how has part of the church often responded to these movements? Instead of being a conscience to society, it has simply accepted whatever society has said is truth, and they have twisted and reinterpreted the Bible to make it politically correct.

D) something else happened. As the world made progress in the social sciences - sociolo-gy and psychology, people have subtly been drawn into believing that the Bible is not sufficient to deal with the problems of our culture. And they have begun to think that the Bible is OK for getting to know God, but more is needed if we are going to help people work through their problems. And in a very subtle way, the Bible has been put on the shelf with a sign over it saying, "Not Credible".

ii) but not all of the attacks have come from within the church, many have come from those who are against Christianity. And they have attacked in different ways.
 

A) they have tried to say that the Bible is not a reliable historical document. And there are several ways that they have tried to prove this.
 

I) they not the fact that none of the original manuscripts of any of the books of the Bible are in existence today. What we have today are just copies of the originals. And based on that, people have tried to prove that we can safely assume that copies always tend to decrease in accuracy, therefore the Bible we hold in our hands today is not accurate.

II) they have tried to prove that the Bible is not accurate when it talks about historical events.

III) they have tried to prove that the Bible is not accurate when it talks about science.

IV) or they have tried to prove that the Bible is full of contradictions. And they know that if they can establish that the Bible contradicts itself on major subjects then they can prove that the Bible is not from God.

B) now, there is one other problem that the critics of Christianity must deal with. Throughout the Bible are hundreds of prophetic statements about the future - very detailed predictions of what will happen in future. And often these prophecies were written 500-1000 yrs before the events actually happened. And critics know that these prophecies give tremendous proof that the Bible was written by God, the author and Sovereign of history. And so, critics have worked hard to try and prove that the prophecies were not written before the events actually happened, but that they were written after the events had actually taken place, and that the writers tried to trick people into thinking that they had actually written this stuff prior to the events happening.

2. Responding To The Attack

a) can these charges be responded to? Does the Bible stand up to this kind of close scrutiny?
 

- to find that out, there are 3 questions that must be dealt with. Today, we'll look at the first two questions. We'll save the third for next message.

I) Can we be certain that the English version of the Bible we hold in our hands today is translated from copies that accurate copies of the original? - the Bibliographical test

a) scholars realize that with all ancient documents, including the Bible, we do not have any of the original documents. Therefore, the first thing that must be determined is the reliability of the copies we have. Are they an accurate copy of the original. To determine that, there are 3 things that must be investigated.
 

i) the number of manuscripts in existence today.

ii) the care given in copying those manuscripts. And that is discovered by checking out 2 things.

A) to seek to learn from history the known practices involved in the copying of this document. If we can learn whether great care was taken or not, it will help a bit in determining the accuracy of the copies.

B) compare the existing copies with each other to see how much they differ with each other. If there are a lot of differences, then you know that there was not a lot of care given to copying these documents. And therefore, you know that they are not very reliable.

iii) determine the time interval between the original manuscript and the existing copies. Let me give you 2 scenarios. First, you have an original manuscript that was written in 50 A.D. and the earliest copies available are dated at 1000 A.D. Second, you have an original that was written in 50 A.D. and the earliest copies available are dated at 300 A.D. Now, which one would you expect to be more reliable? The second scenario. Because in the first scenario, the potential is there for the original to have been copied, and then to have a copy made of the copy. And then if the original was lost, and the copy was lost, the next copy you would make would be of the copy of the copy. And the more time that passes between the original and the latest existing copy means that there could have been many copies of copies of copies, etc. And we have no way of knowing how many changes might have been made. And so, the less time between the original manuscript and the latest existing copy, the greater chance of reliability.

b) so, how does the Bible fare when this bibliographical test is applied?

i) the care given in copying
 

A) there were two primary groups of scholars who devoted their lives to copying the Jewish Scriptures. These were the Talmudists (A.D. 100-500), and the Massoretes (A.D. 500-900).

B) let me read you an article researched by Samuel Davidson about the extreme care taken by the Talmudists in copying Scripture. "[1] A synagogue roll must be written on the skins of clean animals, [2] prepared for the particular use of the synagogue by a Jew. [3] These must be fastened together with strings taken from clean animals. [4] Every skin must contain a certain number of columns, equal throughout the entire codex. [5] The length of each column must not extend over less than 48 or more than 60 lines; and the breadth must consist of thirty letters. [6] The whole copy must be first lined; and if three words be written without a line, it is worthless. [7] The ink should be black, neither red, green, nor any other colour, and be prepared according to a definite recipe. [8] An authentic copy must be the exemplar, from which the transcriber ought not in the least deviate. [9] No word or letter, not even a yod, must be written from memory, the scribe not having looked at the codex before him...[10] Between every consonant the space of a hair or thread must intervene; [11] between every new paragraph, or section, the breadth of nine consonants; [12] between every book, three lines. [13] The fifth book of Moses must terminate exactly with a line; but the rest need not do so. [14] Besides this, the copyist must sit in full Jewish dress; [15] wash his whole body, [16] not begin to write the name of God with a pen newly dipped in ink, [17] and should a king address him while writing that name, he must take no notice of him."

C) The Massoretes also were very disciplined and meticulous in the copying of Scripture. Let me read you what Sir Frederic Kenyon says about this. "The Massoretes undertook a number of calculations which do not enter into the ordinary sphere of textual criticism. They numbered the verses, words, and letters of every book. They calculated the middle word and the middle letter of each....These trivialities....had yet the effect of securing minute attention to the precise transmission of the text; and they are but an excessive manifestation of a respect for the sacred Scriptures which in itself deserves nothing but praise."

D) and what I want you to see from this is that because such care was taken in copying the OT Scriptures, these copiers of Scripture were so convinced that when they had finished copying a manuscript that they had an exact duplicate of the original, that they would give the new copy equal authority with the one copied from.

ii) the number of manuscripts and the time interval between the original and the existing copies. These are the two key tests within the bibliographical test. To examine this properly, we need to divide this into the Old Testament and the New Testament.

A) consider the following.
 

I) Aristotle, the famed philosopher, wrote up to 322 B.C. Today, there are only 49 copies of anyone document that he wrote, and the earliest copy we have is dated at 1100 A.D. That means that there is a gap of 1400 yrs between when he wrote and the earliest copy available.

II) Plato was a philosopher who wrote up to 347 B.C. Today, there are only 7 copies of his writings available, and the earliest copy is dated at 900 A.D. - a gap of 1200 yrs.

III) but scholars feel that the copies we have today of the writings of these men are very trustworthy.

B) now, when you come to the Old Testament
 

I) today there are about 2000 Hebrew manuscripts of the OT in existence, but many of them are fragments of books.

II) up until 1947, the earliest copy available was dated at 900 A.D. That meant that there was a gap of about 2000 yrs between the actual writing and the earliest available copies. But in 1947,40,000 documents were discovered in caves by the Dead Sea. These became known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Two things make these documents very important.
 

a) they were dated at 125 B.C., 1000 yrs earlier than the previously earliest documents.

b) but what is significant is that as scholars examined these documents, they found that the documents from 1000 yrs later were identical. They discovered the odd spelling error, much like you sometimes find when you are reading a book. And so, what it proved was the precision and care used in copying the Old Testament Scriptures.

C) when you come to the New Testament, you find that there are about 24,000 copies still in existence. And the earliest copies are only 250-300 yrs later than the originals. And as you compare these 24,000 documents, you discover that there are only 400 variations. And by that we mean a discrepancy. Of these 400 variations, most are spelling mistakes. Only 50 have any significance. But even of these, none of them relate to any fundamental doctrine. In other words, no fundamental doctrine rests on any of these disputed readings.

D) now, what all of this leads to is this. The Bible has way more manuscript evidence than any other book in existence. William Green says, "It may safely be said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted." In other words, the Bible we hold in our hands today is made from a copy that is extremely accurate - that is pretty well an exact duplicate of the original.

II) Can we be sure that the writers of the Bible wrote the truth - that what they wrote was accurate?
 

- there are two tests used to determine this.

1) The Internal Evidence Test
 

a) in this test, you are checking to make sure the author is believable. You look for things that help you determine whether there is good evidence that he was telling the truth. Several questions are asked to determine this.
 

i) was the author in a position to know what they are writing about? Were they an eyewitness of what they wrote about, or is their writing based on an eyewitness account? Or do they simply write based on hearsay?
 

- and the Bible does very well here. All of the writers of the Old and New Testaments wrote based on personal experience, or recorded the eyewitness accounts of someone else.

ii) do their writings contain detailed and specific things? Fabricated stories tend to be generalized, whereas people writing as eyewitnesses tend to give specific details, even to the point of including some information that others might consider irrelevant.
 

- again the Bible does well here. The writers of the historical parts of the Bible all give many details that are very specific.

iii) does the writing contain material that might cast a negative image on the writer or the heroes of the story? A good evidence that a writer has truth as the central motive of their writing is that they will include stuff that doesn't make them look very good (their blunders), or the blunders of the heroes of the story.

 

A) and again the Bible does well here. Many people have noted how the Bible faithfully records the blunders of its heroes. It doesn't just tell us all the great stuff Abraham, Moses, David and Peter did, it also tells there failings.
 

I) the first 5 books of the Bible were written by Moses, and in those books he records the two greatest blunders of his life.

II) the gospel of Mark was written based on Peter's eyewitness account of the life of Jesus. And Peter gives detail on his failure in denying Christ.

 

iv) does the author say things in which they contradict them self? Or if two different writers are writing about the same event, do they contradict each other?

- now this is where the critics feel they have Christianity. And this is such a critical area that I want to spend our next message looking at the main passages that critics pull out to try and support their charge that the Bible has many contradictions. But for today, there are a few things that need to be said just to help you think this through.

 

A) a couple weeks ago, I received a document that was written by a person who rejects Christianity. The document was written to supposedly expose all of the contradictions of the Bible. As I read through this document, I noticed a couple of things.
 

I) pretty well every example cited by the author were passages that appear to contradict but an examination of the context of the two passages quickly cleared everything up and revealed that there was no contradiction at all. And you'll see this as we look at some examples next time

II) some of the examples were due to not understanding the meaning of the word used in the original languages. Sometimes the translation into English is not as good as it could be, or does not give all the nuances of the Greek word, and it may appear that there is a contradiction. But a careful study will reveal that there is no contradiction at all.

III) and so, all of the supposed contradictions were cleared up with careful study.

B) one of the frequent statements by the critics is that the 4 gospels are full of con-tradictions. That the writers contradict each other when they talk about the same event in Christ's life. But let me help you think that through.
 

I) a couple of months ago, Kim and the 3 kids went to Florida for a week. When they got home I asked each of them what they did. And as they told me what they did, I realized a couple of things.
 

a) in describing the same events, each child focused on different details - the details that were the most significant to them. And so, if they spent an afternoon on the beach, and the did some swimming and built some sand castles; one might have focused on describing the sand castle they all built, another might have focused on what they did in the water. Though they were all doing the same thing, their accounts of what happened were somewhat different, because each of them sees the world through a little different eyes. That does not mean that their accounts contradict. They were somewhat different, but they simply complemented each other. You see, what I found is that if I listened to all 4 of them talk, I could piece together an accurate picture of what happened. And though at first, some of the accounts might seem contradictory, careful examination would reveal that they all harmonize.

b) further, I realized that in recounting what happened, chronology was not important to them. They did not take pains to make sure they told me the precise order in which everything happened on their holiday. No, they told me about their holiday from their perspective, and that meant first talking about what was most important to them.

C) and the same goes for the Bible - especially the gospels.
 

I) as they wrote, they weren't concerned about chronology. That wasn't their pur-pose. They focused on various themes, and drew from different times in Christ's life to make their point.

II) As I studied through the gospel of Matthew five years ago, I made it my practice to compare each of the passages in Matthew with any parallel passages in the other 3 gospels. And at times it appeared that there was a contradiction. But in each case, careful study revealed that all of the accounts harmonized, they just presented the same event from different eyes.

III) in fact, we need to understand that if all of the gospel writers described the events of Christ's life in exactly the same way, we would be suspicious of what they said. We would know that there was a lack of genuineness.

D) the key question in all of this is:
 

I) are the gospel writers in agreement in what they say about the character of Christ, about His purpose, about His claims? And the answer is a definite yes.

II) as you read through all the books of the Bible, do you find that the writers present the same view of God, the same standard for moral conduct, the same description of man's nature, the same view of the future? And again the answer is a resounding yes.

E) now, what makes this even more amazing is to consider the following facts.
 

I) the Bible was written over a period of about 1600 yrs.

II) it was written by about 40 different authors. Most of them did not know each other. And these writers came from all different levels of society and occupations - some were kings, some were fisherman, one was a farmer, one was a doctor.

III) further, the Bible was written using 3 different languages, and it was written on 3 different continents.

IV) yet, with all of this, there is unity of theme, and there is unity in teaching on every topic discussed, and there are no contradictions. And this gives tremendous evidence that the Bible is not a human book. Only God could produce such an amazing book.

2) The External Evidence Test
 

a) the purpose of this test is to determine whether what is written agrees with known historical and scientific information. It should be obvious that if an ancient document is full of errors about what hap-pened in history, or about any other subject that it seeks to deal with, it is not avery reliable document.

b) many times archaeologists have concluded that statements made by the Bible about places are wrong because they had found no trace that those places existed. But in every case, further digs have have uncovered place that the Bible talked about, and the archaeologists have had to admit that the Bible was accurate.

c) also, critics have claimed that the Bible was in error when it described certain events as having taken place when there was no other evidence that these things actually happened. But again, archaeological digs have uncovered documents that have confirmed that those events actually did happen. And so, time after time, history and archaeology, instead of proving the Bible to be wrong, have confirmed that it is accurate.

d) and so, what we are forced to conclude is that the Bible you hold in your hand today is an accurate and reliable document. And as you look carefully at its unity, you begin to get the feeling that it must have come from God.

III) Is There Evidence That The Bible Is From God?

a) now there is one more question that must be dealt with. All we have proven so far is that the Bible we hold today is accurate and is a reliable copy of the original. But what you must understand is that the Bible does not claim just to be a reliable book written by some people long ago, it claims to be from God, it claims to be speak the truth on every subject it deals with, and it claims to be without error. Those are some pretty remarkable claims. Is there evidence to support those claims?
 

i) well, today we saw that the unity of the Bible points us in that direction.

ii) the other great evidence in regard to this is prophecy. The Bible contains hundreds of prophecies, many of which were written more than 500 yrs before the events took place. These prophecies were very detailed. And in each case, they were fulfilled in every detail. And only God could predict the future with 100% accuracy.

b) now, because this is such a significant proof to get a grasp of, I am going to save it until the next message as well. And it is my prayer that from what you have learned today, you will be convinced in your own mind that Christianity is credible because it is based on a book that is not only extremely reliable, but also because there is tremendous evidence that points to the fact that God wrote this book and gave it to us, and it is the only authoritative and reliable source of revelation regarding God's character, the origin of man, his nature, his spiritual need, his destiny, and the way of salvation. 

Go Back to the Index of Tim's writing
  Go to Sermon 6 in this series.