Answering Criticism of the Bible

Several months ago, I planned to preach on the basics of biblical interpretation in a sermon called "How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth", which I did yesterday.

It is interesting how the timing works with something like this, because last weekend I discovered the latest Newsweek magazine cover story was on basically the same subject. Now if you were to read this article and compare it to my sermon, you would quickly discover they each coming from opposite points of view.

If you are new to these issues, or new to the Christian faith, that article may seem to bring up some troubling questions and inconsistencies about what we call 'God's Word'. It certainly tries to make the case that no one with serious intelligence would take the Bible as fully true and totally sufficient for life and doctrine. 

And while I think it makes some unfair arguments that ignore the complete scope of the issues, I do think it is good for Christians to interact with these criticisms and be ready to properly respond to them. So I am interrupting my semi-regularly scheduled posts on music to offer responses to the various points the article makes. 

Before getting into the specifics, let me preface it all with this:

I grew up in a conservative, Bible-believing family that went to a church of the same ilk. After attending a public high school, I went to a conservative, evangelical college majoring in Youth Ministry and minoring in Biblical Studies before attending the same school's well-renowned seminary where I completed a Master of Divinity in Pastoral Ministry. Given all of that background, nothing in this article is new to me. At one point or another, I had studied and interacted with everything that article brings up. The author paints a picture of evangelicals as having our heads buried in the sand when it comes to these supposed 'weaknesses' of Scripture. Undoubtedly some of us do, but any Christian college and seminary education worth its salt will consider and evaluate opposing arguments, studying them in depth. 

And that is more than I can say for this article.

But let's weigh these criticisms and evaluate their validity.

1. Much of the first quarter of the article deals with issues of textual criticism and transmission of the text (i.e., "translations").  When I first started reading, I was afraid they were going to ignore the transmission process altogether, but the author does describe how the Bible was passed down from generation to generation by scribes copying the Word.  The article undersells the care given to the process and the accuracy that was sought and attained. Yes there are many 'variations' in the the copies of Scripture we have today and we do not have the originals. But what the article fails to recognize is that there is 98% agreement between all of the copies we have.* And no variant puts any serious theological issue in doubt. And when there are variants in play, most cases involve clear evidence which favors why one option was picked over another.
   And the examples the author uses are flimsy when investigated in depth.
   • I would have to Luke 3 more closely, but given my general knowledge of these issues I would guess that Luke 3:16 uses "answered" not because of a scribal mistake, or a 'missing question' , but because it fits with the previous verse and it fit ancient Greek writing styles. 
   • John 7:53-8:11 is widely recognized by evangelical Christian scholars as not part of John's original book - and most good study Bibles include notes like this to explain:
     There is considerable doubt that this story is part of John’s original Gospel, for it is absent from all of the oldest manuscripts. But there is nothing in it unworthy of sound doctrine. It seems best to view the story as something that probably happened during Jesus’ ministry but that was not originally part of what John wrote in his Gospel. Therefore it should not be considered as part of Scripture and should not be used as the basis for building any point of doctrine unless confirmed in Scripture. (ESV Study Bible)
   • The issue with Mark 16 is essentially the same, with most Bibles providing similar commentary that describes how some manuscripts have the verses, some do not. They are left in the text because they are consistent with the rest of Scripture.
     
     
     If you've made it this far, keep reading after the jump for further response to the major points the article asserts.
     
     
     
     
2. The article transitions from textual criticism issues to translation. No one will ever accuse me of defending the King James Version as a great translation - so I'm not going to defend that particular version. But the article misses the overall point about the translating process. Yes translations involve interpretation at a certain point. However, translators make informed interpretations when doing so. They weigh the potential meaning of words - how they are defined inside the Bible and outside the Bible. Inside the context of the specific verse and book and author, and outside those as well. Part of a preacher's/scholar's/student's job is to make interpretive decisions based off of informed evidence (not their personal bias). And to sneak in an example to try to undermine the deity of Christ at this point is just weak. As if that one translation of προσκυνέω, even if it were incorrectly interpreted by translators, would remove all evidence of Christ being God. The author might want to read John 1 and Colossians 1 before making that point.
    
3. When the article gets into disparaging the early Church and Constantine, he reveals some flawed presuppositions. Without a doubt, Christians attacking and killing other 'Christians' is a historical tragedy. But let's first recognize that two groups that believe in fundamentally different things are not the same thing - even if they use the same label (or if we put the same label on them hundreds of years later). I am currently sitting in a deli attached to a grocery store. If I go to the sandwich meats section and tear off a label of a turkey package and stick in on a sliced chicken packet, that doesn't make the contents of both the same. That just means I may trick someone into buying chicken when they are looking for turkey. This is not to excuse any un-gracious behavior and even the taking of lives, but the author is misconstruing what was going on.
   In the end, the author also fails to make a convincing case that this issue truly undermines the authority and dependability of God's Word. The rest of his description of Constantine's actions and the various important early Church councils is rudimentary while also missing the point that all of these events were part of a larger ongoing process of Christianity defining itself. A consensus was built and has been adhered to as a result of this  process. Other views on Scripture, Jesus, and other doctrines existed, but it was corporately determined that they failed orthodoxy.
   
4. As the rest of the article goes on, the author uses a lot of space to draw out apparent contradictions within the Bible. In general, I will simply note that differences in Scripture do not automatically qualify as contradictions in Scripture. A decent Study Bible contains enough information to resolve these specifically. For example, does Genesis 1 and 2 contain two contradictory accounts of Creation or does it begin with a general account and follow up with a specific description? Is chapter one a God-centered account of His activity and is chapter two a man-centered account? These differences are often easily explained in ways such as these.
   
5. This article also dabbles in some proof-texting as well, something Christians are often criticized for doing (even in this article ironically). Verses are pulled out of context to give the impression of errors, contradictions, and mistakes in application by Christians. Little regard is given for the progress of revelation and the interpretive process that recognizes the Law of the Old Testament no longer directly applicable in many cases.
   

Do Christians deserve criticism for poorly applying God's Word? Yes.

Have we always defined, defended, and lived out the Bible like we should have? No.

Do the arguments set forth in this article prove the Bible is merely a human compilation filled with flaws and errors? NO - far from it.

We have plenty at our disposal to give us confidence that God's Word is true and dependable, and worth centering our lives on. Hopefully this post has helped support that reality.


---
* J.Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hayes. Grasping God's Word. Grand Rapids MI, Zondervan Publishing, 2012. Page Number to be added soon.