There is one theme which permeates the pages of Scripture from beginning to end. This theme is that of salvation. From the opening chapters of Genesis, the stage is set. God created everything, including man. Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden and God Almighty was in relationship with them. Something happened though, all of that changed. There was one rule given to Adam and Eve—do not eat fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. When this one rule was broken, so was the relationship between God and humanity. There was a punishment which had to be satisfied; for the rule also contained a consequence if broken. With the disobedience of Adam and Eve, sin entered the world and marred the relationship of the creation with the Creator.

Salvation is the plan of action God implemented in order to restore that relationship. Jesus Christ, God himself, put on the flesh of humanity and died upon the cross. His death paid the price for our sins and paved the way for the gift of salvation. The Scriptures make all of this plain. There is no person not stained from sin: “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). This creates a very real problem for us. Without forgiveness for our sins we are doomed to eternity in hell; we are unable to enter the presence of our Holy God in our present sinful state (1 Corinthians 6:9). The Bible further makes plain the way we receive this forgiveness is “if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9). Therefore, salvation is a willful participation of one’s self with the death of Christ on the cross. In doing so, we are counted as righteous before God because Christ accomplished what we are unable to do.

Anyone reading the whole of Scripture cannot, in good conscience, come away with any other understanding of salvation. It is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8) found only in Jesus Christ (John 14:6, Acts 4:12) that grants salvation to any person that would accept him as Lord and Savior (Acts 2:38, Romans 10:13).

Even though this is clear, there is a point where this causes us trepidation. It causes us to question if this is how salvation always works. Tragedy is often the source of much questioning concerning God and the Bible. So it should be no surprise that tragedy is what brings about this question. The death of a child is a tragedy, which to the grieving parents, cannot be eclipsed by many others. During this time of loss, our hearts and minds often turn to the fate of that child—to his/her eternal destiny.

While this seems at first glance a simple question to answer, it is somewhat difficult. One reason for this is that Scripture does not explicitly address the eternal destiny of the unborn, infants, and young children. Another reason is that Scripture is clear the unborn, infants, and young children are not innocent either. For example, Psalm 51:5 explains that we are sinful from conception, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” Psalm 58:3 also articulates this, “Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.” Romans 3:23, quoted above, as well as many other Scriptures substantiate the clear teaching that humanity is in a state of sin from conception and as such, doomed to eternal punishment in hell unless one accepts Christ. I’m sure you are beginning to see the problem at this point. How can the unborn, infants, and young children accept Christ?—they cannot talk nor can they understand their need for salvation. This is where the point of contention lies.

The answer to this question and the teaching which surrounds it is often referred to as “the age of accountability.” This phrase refers to the belief that God does not hold us morally accountable for our sins until we reach a specific age. This is not uncommon though. For Jews, this is associated with Bar mitzvah. This is when Jewish children are held accountable to Torah. When Amish children reach sixteen they enter into “Rumspringa;” a time when they are allowed to decide if they are going to remain in the Amish church or leave for the world outside their community. Once the decision is made though, the children are held accountable.

The question remains though, does God grant a continuance per se? One method of answering this is to simply assert that they are in heaven. This answer, however, is simply a sentimental attempt at resolving the problem at hand. It is born out of what we want concerning these little ones; we want them to be in heaven. It completely ignores Scripture and lacks even an attempt at seeking an answer there. A second manner of answering this is that they are doomed to eternal punishment in hell. This answer is unsettling; although it attempts at drawing in the biblical understanding of our sinful state. A third vein claims that only those children who have been baptized will enter into heaven, but this answer places too much importance of the act of baptism. So what is the answer to this question?

Considering the understanding of how salvation normally works, it is important to first look at how it might be possible for the unborn, infants, and young children to be forgiven of their sins without cognitively accepting Christ. The atonement is of premier importance. Christ’s death on the cross was the atoning sacrifice sufficient for the forgiveness of sins for all of humanity. First John 2:2 describes this succinctly, “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (cf. 1 Peter 3:18; Romans 5:15; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Heb 9:26; John 1:29, 12:32-33). In other words, Christ paid the price for all sins to be forgiven; however, that forgiveness is applied to us individually as we accept Jesus as Lord and Savior recognizing that we are unable to atone for our sins as he has.

While many believe the Scriptures do not have much to say on this topic, there is much to glean from the pages of the Bible. The starting point is Jeremiah 31:29-30, “In those days people will no longer say, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—his own teeth will be set on edge.” The prophet Jeremiah was writing about the new covenant. This is different from the old covenant God made with the Jews. In that covenant, the Law was the mediating factor in the relationship between God and his people. The new covenant is different because it was to be a law written on the hearts and minds of the people rather than stone tablets and parchment. It was to be a relationship. That our hearts desire is to please the God whom we love, not to follow a set of rules. We enjoy the new covenant and under this new covenant every individual is responsible for their actions before the Lord—whether that be for good or for bad. A lengthy passage in Ezekiel expounds upon this understanding, but ends with a clear point that is salient to the discussion at hand. “Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked?” declares the Sovereign LORD. “Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?” (Ezekiel 18:23). God does not derive any pleasure from sending the wicked to hell; instead, he finds pleasure in people repenting and placing their trust in Jesus. The problem still remains though as this passage bolsters the position that there must be an acceptance of salvation, a willful repenting from one’s sins.

The Old Testament book of 2 Samuel contains much of David’s life as the king of Israel. It also contains one of David’s biggest failures as king. He commits adultery with Bathsheba and has her husband murdered to cover up the resulting pregnancy. Part of David’s punishment is the death of that child conceived by the adulterous relationship. When the child becomes ill and during the entire time of the child’s illness, David fasts, weeps, and prays for the child. However, when the child dies, he gets up and goes on with life. This bewilders his attendants and advisers. David explained his actions by stating,

“While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.’ But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me” (2 Samuel 12:22-23, emphasis added).

David clearly believed that he would be reunited with his child in the presence of the Lord. He doesn’t go into detail about why he believes this, there is just a simple trust in the Lord at this point.

Jesus, however, is not so silent on the matter. The parable contained in Matthew 18:10-14 is very illuminating:

“See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven. “What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost”

Immediately preceding this parable, Jesus has a young child come and stand among he and the disciples (as a visual aid if you will). In his words to the disciples he makes it clear that God does is not willing that any of these should be lost. A similar passage, Mark 10:13-16, explains that the disciples were actually attempting to prevent children from “bothering” Jesus. This upsets Jesus and prompts him to chastise the disciples with his statement in verses 14-15, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” So we have two statements by Jesus Christ. The first is that God is not willing for any child to be lost. The second is that the kingdom of God belongs to children. Combining these two statements by Jesus with David’s statement, it becomes clear that God makes a way for the unborn, infants, and young children to enter heaven.

This is clearly an act of God’s grace (Romans 5:15, Ephesians 2:1-10), because the child has not done anything to deserve it. What then does this mean in terms of judgment? That is an important question because Scripture is clear that mankind will face the judgment of God. It means that there has to come a point in one’s life where God does hold us accountable for our sin. Otherwise, we quickly fall into the heresy that everyone will eventually make it into heaven. This is a teaching that is refuted by an overwhelming tide of Scripture which explains there is an eternal punishment for the wicked and eternal life for the righteous.

Where does this point exists? At what age do we become accountable? The Bible does not establish a specific age. Rather, one’s ability to understand the basic problem of sin and the need for salvation determines accountability before God (Romans 1:19-20; Acts 28:23-31). Therefore, a specific age cannot be established. This is especially true considering that every person mentally matures at a different rate. Likewise, I think this gift of God’s grace also extends to the mentally handicapped (at least those unable to reach this stage of understanding). Since there is no specific age established in Scripture nor is there any passage which expounds upon this matter in depth, we must be careful not to make this a dogmatic doctrine upon which we judge one’s position to be heretical or orthodox. Rather, we must simply trust God. For as Abraham exclaimed, “Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Genesis 18:25). Consider Psalm 116:5 as well, “The Lord is gracious and righteous; our God is full of compassion.” The evidence from Scripture indicates that God extends his grace and mercy to the unborn, the infant, the young child, and the mentally handicap in order to bring them into eternal life—and we must trust God as the righteous judge, the Creator of the universe.

In my previous post I outlined the trinity in as basic and succinct fashion as possible. At the end of that post, however, I explained that I would tackle the big question—why is the trinity such a big deal? When one looks at the history of the Christian church, this is one of the subjects which have caused considerable debate and division among the ranks of Christendom. So why is everyone so vehement about their position concerning the trinity? It is important for a couple of reasons.

It is how God revealed himself
This may seem to be an understatement at first glance. This couldn’t be further from the truth though. It strikes at the very core of who God is—his very being. God is the creator of all things and made us with a purpose. He made us to be in relationship to him. So understanding God is not unimportant. When getting to know another person, it would be rather offensive to them for us to say, “Oh, I don’t need to know whether you are white, blue-eyed, or male.” These are all facts of who that person is—their very being. God has revealed his very nature to humanity and the picture with which one draws is important to how they will interact with him.

It serves as an example to us
There is a perfect love that exists between the members of the trinity, which is the example of how our relationships should be characterized between one another. Jesus speaks to this very point in John 15:9—“As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love.” Several other Scriptures address this as well. 1 John 4:21 reads, “And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.” Similarly, John 17:22-23explains that we are to be exhibiting the unity and love that exists among the Father, the Son, and (implicit in the passage) the Spirit—“I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”

What if any of these points are neglected or denied?
While some would attempt to state their agreement with one or two points, one cannot be a quasi-trinitarian. It is a doctrine where one must agree with all three points or else they come away with a greatly distorted image. For example, if someone denies the first point (there is one God), then they become polytheistic, pluralistic, or the like. It would be denying one of the foundational tenants of Christianity. It would be leaving the realm of monotheism and entering another.

The second point also must be maintained. When this is denied, it puts got in an awkward position as it then forces him to take on different “roles.” There are clearly three main characters when speaking to God in the Scriptures. When one denies that God is three persons, it follows that there is one person fulfilling three different roles. Does this mean that God left the throne room unattended while in the physical person of Jesus Christ? Was he performing one big magic trick at the baptism of Christ in order to make us think there is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit? Lastly, what would God truly gain in having three different roles to fulfill? It seems that this only serves to complicate things. Would it not be easier for God to simply be God? Trying to balance three different “hats” unquestionably muddles up the picture God is trying to paint of himself to humanity. I imagine it would be like trying to have a relationship with someone who has a multiple personality disorder; you would constantly have to ask yourself with which personality you are currently relating before being able to proceed forward.

When denying the third point, it leads to having a hierarchy and essentially denies deity to one or members of the trinity. What do I mean by that? Viewing the members of the trinity as not being equal in deity inevitably leads to one member of the trinity being exalted over another. This is actually all too common among Christians. While they do not overtly or explicitly promote this position, they inadvertently advocate it by their actions. For example, the salvific work of Christ on the cross is certainly an important part of our daily life as Christians. However, this usually leads us to making all of our prayers about him, to him, and through him even though Romans 8:26 makes it clear that it is the Holy Spirit who intercedes for us and makes our prayers effective (especially when we are spiritually week). Likewise, there are groups who focus on being “led by the Spirit” and end up neglecting the very work which the Holy Spirit helped produce to guide men—it’s called the Bible.

All three points regarding the doctrine of the trinity are essential to the complete understanding of God and how we relate to him in our faith, both daily and for eternity. While I hope that I have been able to bring some clarity about this doctrine, I also want to remind you that it is a subject which is beyond our complete comprehension. So even after reading this post and even if you began an exhaustive theological study concerning this doctrine, you will always find yourself coming away confused and not concrete in your understanding.

• There is one God
• God is three persons
• Each person is fully God

In the next post, I will begin to tackle the question of why the trinity is such a big deal? What does it truly matter? And what happens if any of these three points are neglected?

What are the “lost books”?

Over the last few years, there has been quite a bit of discussion regarding writings that have been deemed “the lost books of the Bible.” But is this really a good characterization of these books? What are the books? Were they ever included among the other writings of the Bible? These are all valid questions that surface when one begins to consider this discussion of whether or not these books hold a rightful place in the canon of Scripture.

There are really two categories into which the books fall—Old Testament and New Testament. No surprise there huh? Those books which would fall into the Old Testament are collectively known as the Apocrypha and those which would fall into the New Testament are known as the Gnostic Gospels.

The Apocrypha includes the following 15 books: 1 & 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Song of Three Youths, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 & 2 Maccabbees. These books were written during what is commonly known as the intertestamental period, which was roughly from 300 BC – 100 BC.

The Gnostic Gospels are a much broader group of books of which there is no standard list in the sense of a canon. However, some of the more popular books from this group include The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Mary, The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles, and The Sophia of Jesus Christ. These books were written anywhere from 100 AD – 800 AD.

Were these books originally in the Bible and then lost?

Let me first introduce you to why many of these books are even considered to have been lost. For centuries, the only Scriptural writings known for the New Testament were the 27 which appear in the Bible today. It was not until the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts that anyone even wondered about “lost books” of the Bible. Why, you might ask? It is because this discovery contained many of the books which are now known as the Gnostic Gospels. Before this discovery, there was no real question about the canon of Scripture being purposefully altered.

In fact, the very names given to these two groups tell much about why they are not contained in the canon of Scripture. Apocrypha is a Greek word which translated to English would roughly mean “hidden” or “hard/difficult to understand.” This is very similar to what the word Gnostic or Gnosis means. Gnosis is also a Greek word which means “knowledge.” It came to describe a religious sect that viewed knowledge in a very peculiar manner. They viewed knowledge as a means to the supernatural. Basically, as they gained knowledge they would become more divine. This was not just any knowledge however; it had to be a special knowledge which was taught to you by those who already possessed the higher knowledge. The leaders held the special/higher knowledge and taught it to their initiates/disciples/students in little bits as the leaders deemed the students were ready and able to handle it.

The Apocrypha and the Gnostic Gospels were also never placed in the canon of Scripture because they failed to meet the criteria of which the rest of the books did meet. For the Old Testament, the number one criterion to be considered for inscripturation was prophetic authorship. Along with this was the question of whether or not the prophet was confirmed by an act of God. Furthermore, the Jews did not accept these books as canonical.

The case against the Gnostic Gospels is very similar. All of the Gnostic Gospels were written after the death of the apostles, which was the first criteria for acceptance into the canon—either direct apostolic authorship or apostolic approval. Another criterion was whether they were considered Scripture by the early church, which they were not. Furthermore, they contain teachings which are directly contrary to those books that are considered to be Scripture.

How should these books be characterized?

The books contained in the Apocrypha should not simply be discarded as useless simply because they are not Scripture. They contain some very valuable perspectives and information that add much to the understanding of Scripture. These books add much to understanding what happened during the intertestamental period in terms of Jewish history and religion. For example, 1 and 2 Maccabbees records the history of the Jewish revolt against Antiochus Epiphanies, which resulted in the Jews gaining their independence back for some time. The Apocryphal writings are a great source of information that is just not Scripture—much like a modern-day commentary on the Bible can be a great source of information but is not on par with the Bible.

The Gnostic Gospels, however, fall into a much different realm. In general, they do not contain historical information about Christianity or its development. Most attempt to demonstrate that Jesus was Divine but was not human. In doing this, they incorporate many strange teachings that are completely contrary to what the rest of the New Testament teaches. I still would not say that they need to be discarded because they add much to the understanding of the beliefs of the Gnostics.

In short, there are no lost books of the Bible, we are not missing critical parts of the Bible, nor was the canon of Scripture selected to meet the specific beliefs of a select few leaders of the church. The canon of 66 books we possess today is the same canon the early Christians possessed by 100 AD. So don’t worry about your Bible missing books, they’re all there!

What always comes with the New Year? Numerous resolutions and for many Christians, one of those resolutions will have something to do with the Bible. It might be to start reading the Bible more regularly, or to get more out of their reading time, or perhaps even to read the entire Bible over the next year.

I just wanted to take a moment and give you some resources that will help you accomplish your goal. Reading the Bible is an important aspect of the Christian faith that is too often neglected by those for whom it should take prominence. As a pastor, I see time after time where Christians don’t take the time to read their Bible and so they don’t even know something as simple as where the Ten Commandments are located. However, you ask them about the Chronicles of Narnia and they could draw a story board for you. That is not saying there is anything wrong with Narnia, but it is saying that Christians should be putting that much effort into reading their Bibles.

First, you can receive your daily reading in your email by visiting the ESV (English Standard Version) website. There you can choose from quite a number of different reading plans as well as different methods that you can read those plans such as: email, rss, mobile, print, etc.

Another help available to you is a website called YouVersion.com. This website is designed specifically to give people mobile access to the Bible from your iPhone, BlackBerry, Android, or web enabled smartphone. You can read 41 different translations in 22 different languages. With YouVersion, you’ll never be far from the Word.

For those of you who don’t think you can tough it out for an entire year in order to read the Bible from cover to cover, there is another reading plan I would like to offer you. It is the Bible in 90 Days reading plan. This is a very intense reading plan and requires a great deal of commitment in order to accomplish. The task itself is really not that difficult. You will spend about 45 minutes to an hour each day reading (less if you’re a fast reader) and at the end of three months you will have read the entire Bible. There is also a Bible designed specifically for this. It comes in the NIV thinline (New International Version) and has large print. With this Bible you read twelve pages a day, which are marked to help you keep track of where you are along your reading plan. If you are one who likes to study the Bible and make notes in your Bible, then I would encourage you to get this Bible. I am very much a person who writes notes in the margin of my Bible (that’s why I own a wide margin Bible), and this helps keep me from feeling the urge to write notes and stay on task to complete the reading.

For those of you who are not necessarily looking to read the Bible cover to cover but just to start getting more out of your time with the Bible, there are two resources to which I would like to point you. The first is a series of posts that are appearing on Fallen and Flawed about how to study the Bible, which are being guest authored by Jonathan Woodward who runs Sorting Beans. These will help you start to read the Bible and get more out of what you read. However, if you really want to dive deep into studying the Bible, then I would recommend you go and pick up a copy of Living by the Book. Howard Hendricks does an excellent job of explaining how to study the Bible in a way that is easy to understand. Short of going to Bible College or Seminary, this is the best resource out there to learn how to study the Bible.

So, for all of you who read this post and have those Bible reading resolutions, you have no excuse not to follow through and reach your goal. In fact, I would love to hear from those of you who have made a Bible reading resolution in the comments below; maybe even check back in through the year and let everyone know how you’ve been doing. Maybe this post will turn into a place everyone can hold themselves and each other accountable, who knows…

This post was written by Demian Farnworth, who authors Fallen and Flawed, at the beginning of this month. I have re-posted it here in its entirety with his permission. Please head to his site to leave comments.

Ben Affleck never read the Bible as a child.

So, as an adult he expected it to be loaded with fire and brimstone…

Ripe with weeping and gnashing teeth.

Naturally this notion was only reinforced as he encountered one angry, hateful person after another who claimed to represent all Christians.

This stereotype held until he actually read the Bible.

In fact, this is what he said about reading the Gospel According to Matthew in an August 2008 Oprah magazine:

“Reading the Bible disabused me of any sense that a hateful person could represent this faith. The book is beautiful and exquisitely written–but it is characterized by one quality that colors every page: love.”

He went on to say that reading the Bible made it harder for him to accept the “damaging and small minded beliefs” that people promote in the name of Christian values.

I wonder if he had Fred Phelps in mind when he said that.

Where I’m Going with This

Often on this blog I here non-believers write the Bible off as a collection of hallucinogenic babbling from the mental fringe.

Indeed in my own experience as a non-believer I made outlandish claims about the perversity of the Bible…without ever reading it…so I’m inclined to believe neither have they.

At least not carefully.

Yet honest people like Richard Dawkins read the OT and shake their head in disbelief at what they deem a volatile, childish tyrant.

What gives? The New Testament gives.

Sinclair Ferguson writes, “You cannot open the pages of the New Testament without realizing that one of the things that makes it so ‘new’, in every way, is that here men and women call God ‘Father.’”

This conviction of intimacy with the creator of the universe lies at the heart of our faith. And it suggest we humbly read the Bible in it’s entirety…

And we understand the OT through the lens of Christ.

Reading Matthew obviously had an impact on Ben Affleck. But I don’t know if Ben Affleck is a true believer.

To be sure, he anticipates the question in the article when he says he considers his religious beliefs private matters.

But he nonetheless is moved by it. Perhaps no more than a deep interest in social justice as indicated by his involvement in genocide recovery.

Your Turn

But what about you: What was your first encounter with the Bible like? With the New Testament? With a particular Gospel?

Did you view it as a majestic piece of literature that can stand on it’s own feet [as I once did during a "Bible as Literature" course]?

Or were you appalled by what you read?

Or did you tear your clothes in grief like Josiah who said, “For great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us”?

There are not very many people who forgo celebrating Christmas in some way, shape, or form. But what is Christmas all about? Christmas is truly supposed to be a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. This naturally leads many people to ask the question, “Was Jesus born on December 25th?”

The short answer to that question is quite simply no; Jesus was not born on the 25th day of December. In fact, it is most likely that Jesus wasn’t even born anywhere close to December. We do not have an exact date for the birth of Jesus, but what we do have are some pretty good clues as to the season of his birth.

There are two major clues found in the Scriptures concerning the date of Jesus’ birth. The first is mentioned in Luke 2:1. This verse mentions the reason Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem, where Jesus would be born. There was a census given by the Roman Empire that required everyone to return to his or her ancestral home. For Joseph, this was Bethlehem.

The exact date of this census is somewhat hard to determine because Luke’s choice of wording. He mentions the governor Quirinius. However, there is some confusion as to whether or not the census was issued during Quirinius’ governorship or if it was before his time as governor. This is because Quirinius became governor (4 AD) after Herod I had died (4 BC). This would have made the claim in Matthew 2:7-8, 16 about Herod seeking out the Christ child rather difficult as Herod would have been dead if the census was issued during the governorship of Quirinius. The most likely explanation is that the phrase “the first census” is better translated as “the census before Quirinius”—just as the same Greek word was translated in John 1:15.

Nevertheless, the Romans would never have ordered a census to be conducted in the middle of the winter. Not only would it have been difficult for the people to travel and be counted, but also it would have been difficult for the officials of the Empire to travel about and conduct the census and gather the results.

The second major clue as to the birth of Jesus is found in Luke 2:8—And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. The sheepherders would not have been found in the open fields in December. It would have been much too cold and the fields would not have enough vegetation to support their flocks. The shepherds would only have been found in the fields from about the end of March to the beginning of September.

Taking these two pieces of Biblical evidence together, it can only be concluded that Jesus was not born in December, much less the 25th day of the month. But this is not really any surprise; biblical scholars have known for many years that Jesus wasn’t born on December 25. At this point, you might be wondering to yourself why we celebrate the birth of Christ on a day that we know isn’t correct. It is because of a couple of things that did take place on and around this date.

There was a Roman emperor who ruled about 150 years before Jesus was born. Antiochus IV is responsible for creating some of the historical traditions that eventually led to Christmas being celebrated on December 25. The story goes that Antiochus began to utterly despise the Jews. He began outlawing many Jewish religious rituals. If that wasn’t enough, he also required them to begin worshiping the Greek gods.

Antiochus went so far as to seize the temple. Then he proceeded to dedicate the temple to Zeus. In an official act of commencement, he slaughteed a pig on the altar to indicate the temple was dedicated to Zeus from that point forward. This was also a way that Antiochus was thumbing his nose at the Jews because pigs were detestable to them. For Antiochus, it was not enough to take the temple from them (their national religious symbol), but he had performed an act of desecration as well by slaughtering the pig. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the day that Antiochus performed this sacrifice was December 25th. This began a rebellion by the Jewish people known as the Maccabean Revolt.

Eventually the rebellion was successful and Jerusalem was recaptured. Before restoring proper worship in the temple, the Jews removed all traces of idol worship from the temple and held a ceremony to mark its cleansing and dedication back to the worship of Yahweh. Part of this celebration was lighting the menorah. Due to the rebellion, there was only enough oil to burn the lights for one day. The day of this celebration was the 25th of Kislev. However, the Talmud records that the candles miraculously burned for eight days. This sparked an annual celebration known as Hanukkah. This is also known as the fest of dedication or the festival of lights.

This celebration is mentioned in the Bible. It is found in John 10:22. Jesus was teaching in the temple courts. Specifically, what was known as Solomon’s Colonnade. At this point, the Jews approach him and ask, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” They were asking a very specific question. They wanted Jesus to state whether or not He was the Messiah, God in the flesh. This is particularly interesting as Hanukkah marked a time of renewed Jewish nationalism as they remembered a time of their ancestors overcoming an empire and restoring Israel to national independence. They believed the Messiah would also bring the nation of Israel independence. So their question naturally flowed from the celebration. At this point, Jesus clearly proclaimed, “I and the Father are one.” Thus indicating that he was the Messiah.

Even more interesting is the fact that the passages directly preceding this one are clearly intended to demonstrate that while Hanukkah was not a festival established in the Old Testament, Jesus still fulfilled it. In John 8:12 Jesus declared, “I am the true light.” Then in Chapter 9, John records Jesus’ healing of the man born blind. In other words, Jesus brought light into this man’s life of darkness.

It is for these reasons that it is certainly fitting and proper that we would celebrate the birth of Christ, the coming of “the light of life” (Jn 8:12). It is a time when Jesus proclaimed his message of salvation, his message of freedom from spiritual darkness. December 25th is a time to tell our children, family, and friends how we used "to be darkness, but now [we] are light in the Lord" (Ephesians 5:8). It is a time to proclaim the gospel of salvation with renewed fervency.

Back to "Christmas: Separating the Fact from the Fiction"

There is a guest author posting today here at Mr. Hyde's Blog. His name is Demian Farnworth and he is the keynote blogger for Fallen and Flawed. He is kicking off the series titled "Christmas: Separating the Fact from the Fiction." After you finish reading his post, you should head on over to Fallen and Flawed and check out his blog.


Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar.

Do those names sound familiar? Should, they're the names of the three kings who brought gifts to the baby Jesus.

Only problem, the Bible never names the three kings. In fact, the Bible never specifies how many kings actually visit the baby Jesus.

Yes, it specifies three gifts: frankincense, gold and myrrh, but Matthew 2:2-12, which narrates the visit of the kings, allows for the visitation of a hundred kings.

It's that wide open.

And while we're on the topic, those kings...well, they weren't actually kings. That's right. The Bible states "Magi from the east came to Jerusalem."

Well, how did they become kings then? The most popular theory suggests that after 350 A. D. someone wanted to endorse the role of Christian monarchs--and voila, the magi became kings.

But what's a magi? Think Zoroastrian priest. In Latin, the singular form of magi--magos--refers to the religious caste in which Zoroaster was born.

The biblical equivalent would be the religious caste of Levi.

What did Zoroaster and his priests caste do? They studied astronomy, medicine and mathematics--and, you guessed it, astrology--the art of interpreting how stars influence human affairs.

So, where did the those names come from? Well you have to wait about 500 years before the names crop up in a Greek manuscript found in Alexandria.

After that, they just stuck.

Okay, if so much of what we know about the story of the Magi's is wrong, what's true? Well, we know this much: They humped it across the desert to Bethlehem following a star, found baby Jesus in a cave and bowed before him.

Then they gave him gifts fit for a king.

Gifts that were a beautiful reflection of their spiritual adoration. An adoration you and I would be wise to imitate.

This is the post last in a series covering the FAQ’s about the Bible. I have already answered the questions (1) How can we know that the Bible is the Word of God? HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE (2) How did we get the Bible as we know it today? HERE In this post, I am going to be answering the question: What is so important about the Bible anyways? This is the so what question. In other words, so what if the Bible is the Word of God…what does that mean? We can know all those other important things about the Bible, but if we don’t understand how the Bible applies to us individually then it becomes another piece of irrelevant literature. However, the Bible is extremely important to the lives of Christians. In fact, it is absolutely essential to three areas of the Christian life—spiritual growth, maturity, and effectiveness.

The Bible is essential to our spiritual growth. Just as we grow physically in life, we grow spiritually in our Christian life. First Peter 2:2 explains how the Bible is essential to our spiritual growth: Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation. Peter understood that when it comes to the Word of God, we must first have a certain kind of attitude. We should have the attitude like that of a newborn baby. If you haven’t noticed, newborns aren’t really concerned with much. Their main concern is eating, sleeping, and well you know the other thing. Here the point is that our main concern should be with that which nourishes us spiritually—the Bible. Newborns not only have a certain attitude, but they have an appetite. When they are hungry, they cry. They have a desire for nourishment, for milk. We are supposed to have a desire to read and study the Bible. We are to “crave” the Word of God in our lives. Life is hectic, it is busy, and it is full of things that take us away from reading and studying the Bible. Yet, whenever we go through a period where we have not been able to regularly spend time in the Word, there should be a desire and a craving to slow down and get back into the Word that wells up within us like hunger pains. While we may think babies eat just to eat, there is an aim. Just as there is an aim for babies, there is an aim for us when spending time with the Bible. That aim is for us to “grow up in [our] salvation.” If we don’t regularly encounter the Word of God, then we will not experience real spiritual growth.

The Bible is also essential to our spiritual maturity. Spiritual growth is growing in the knowledge of the things of God. We gain that knowledge through the Word of God. Spiritual maturity is learning to apply that knowledge to our lives. As we experience spiritual growth, we should in turn experience spiritual maturity. Hebrew 5:11-14 explains this process beautifully:

We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

The teaching about righteousness is that as we grow in our understanding of God’s Word, we grow in our ability live out that knowledge in our daily lives. How do we go about this process? We begin growing in our spiritual maturity through “constant use” of God’s Word “to distinguish good from evil.” Consider this, a person who has recently given their life to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior struggles with questions regarding sin. They want to be obedient to Jesus and express their love for him, but they are not sure how to do this. So they may ask questions like: Is it okay for Christians to smoke? Is hell, damn, etc. curse words that I shouldn’t be using? Should I hangout with this person? There are an almost endless number of questions that new believers ask, but they all come from the fact that they still don’t know much about the Bible and what it says about how we should live. As Christians spend time reading and studying the Bible, these questions become easier to answer and almost second nature. The things which new believers often struggle with in theirs minds are not difficult for mature believers to resolve in their minds. The point of Hebrews though, is that we should all be maturing in our faith.

Finally, the Bible is essential to our spiritual effectiveness. There are four ways that the Bible aids us in becoming spiritually more effective. These four ways are listen in 2 Timothy 3:16-17: 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.

The first way that it is useful is for teaching. This word more literally translates to doctrine. The Bible is useful for forming our core of beliefs. What do we believe about God? What do we believe about sin? What do we believe about __________(fill in the blank)? The Bible is useful for forming doctrine. The second way that the Bible helps us become spiritually effective is that it its usefulness for rebuking. Now, this doesn’t mean that we use the Bible to browbeat ourselves or anyone else. The Bible rebukes us all by itself; it doesn’t need our help. How does the Bible rebuke us? It tells us when and where we are out-of-bounds in our lives. It reveals to us when our lives have left the realm of obedience. The third way the Bible is essential to our spiritual effectiveness is that it not only rebukes us, but it corrects us. It tells us how to get back in-bounds when we have stepped out. It explains to us how to turn from sin and conform to God’s will. Finally, the Bible is essential to our spiritual effectiveness because it provides training in righteousness. The Bible explains how we can stay in-bounds to begin with, rather than simply showing us when we are out-of-bounds (rebuking) and how to get back in-bounds (correcting). These four things come together to make the Bible absolutely essential to our spiritual effectiveness.

Maybe you have wanted to be more effective for the kingdom of Jesus Christ. But I have to ask, what have you been doing to prepare yourself to be more effective? If you have not been spending time in the Word of God, you may well not be at a point where God can use you. Imagine that you have grown in the understanding of your profession by the same amount that you have in your Christian growth after the same number of years—what would be the outcome in your job? Oh, we spend a lot of time growing in our understand and effectiveness in every other area of our lives except the Bible. Lord, forgive us all for neglecting Your Word and strengthen our self-discipline that we might correct the error of our ways.

Do you have other questions about the Bible you would like for me to answer? Feel free to leave them in the comments section below or email them to me at MrHydesBlog@gmail.com

This series of posts have been tackling the frequently asked questions about the Bible. The first four posts in this series answered the question, “How can we know the Bible is the Word of God?” I used the acronym M-A-P-S as a guide to answering that question. The letters stand for Manuscript Evidence, Archeological Evidence, Prophecy, and Statistical Probability. There are still many other questions that are often asked about the Bible. One of those questions is how did we get the Bible as we know it today? This question is easily answered, but very few people actually know it.

The Bible as we know it today didn’t fall out of the sky or anything of the like. We received the Bible as we know it today through a process known as canonization. This is the process of recognizing those books that have the authority of God. Every now and then, you might hear someone refer to the “canon of Scripture.” This specifically refers to the 66 books contained in modern Bibles, but the word canon comes from a Greek word that means a reed, or rod as in a measuring rod. This is because there was a very precise rule or standard a book had to meet before it was considered Scripture. What was this standard? I’m glad you asked.

There was never a list of criteria written down where one could go and find a checklist and apply it to a book. However, there were some very clear criteria that were placed upon books of the Bible before they were accepted as Scripture. One of the first criteria was the authorship of the book. For Old Testament books, this was a question of whether or not it was written by a prophetic figure. New Testament books looked for apostolic authorship or apostolic support. The next major criterion was divine confirmation. Had God confirmed the author as being his messenger through mighty acts and deeds? This was essential because there have always been people who claim to have divine authority; these people are called false prophets in the Scriptures. Therefore, if someone had not been confirmed as a divinely appointed messenger, then there writings were rejected as Scripture. Doctrinal harmony was another criterion—did it line-up with the rest of Scriptural teaching. Many of the New Testament books began as circular letters that were read aloud in the churches and passed from church to church until every congregation had read the letter aloud. This formed the basis for another criterion for canonicity. Did churches already accept the book as possessing divine authority? All of these were important criteria when considering canonicity. However, spiritual profitability was one of the last considerations. All of those other criteria could be met in a book being considered, but it could still have lacked spiritual profitability. In other words, did the book serve to build up the church in the things of God? This is a criteria that is contained in the New Testament book 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “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.”

As you can see, there was serious consideration given to a book before it was considered canonical. This brings us to the next thing about the canon some people ask—are we still receiving Scripture today? The answer to this question is simply no. The canon of Scripture is closed. There are many reasons to come to this conclusion. The first is a theological reason. The Scriptures in the Old Testament were paving the way for Jesus Christ as they recorded God’s work among the nation of Israel, the nation from which Jesus would come. The New Testament is the written record of the coming of Jesus and the establishment of the church. There is no need for further revelation. This does not mean that God is no longer personally involved in humanity; or that people will not continue to gain new understanding of Scripture; or that because the apostles died that miracles have ceased. The other reason is historical. Because the apostles died, the divinely appointed messengers of Holy Scripture are not around to write Scripture. And historically speaking, there have not been any other messengers who have had the same divine confirmation like that of the apostles—raising the dead, speaking in tongues, healing the sick, etc. By the end of the fourth century A.D., the 66 books contained in modern translations of the Bible were the accepted canon of the Scripture.


There are still some other important things to know about the Bible as we have it today. I think many people don’t understand how the Bible is organized. It is not just a hodge-podge of books just randomly thrown together. There is a very specific organization to the 66 books of the Bible, and it is not chronological. The only chronological section of the Bible is from Genesis to 2 Kings. However, in the bookcase image above you can see that the Bible is first divided into two major sections. These are known as the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament contains all of the Scriptures revealed to the nation of Israel. It contains information about creation, God’s establishment of the nation of Israel, the rebellion of Israel against God, the capture and defeat of the nation of Israel by Assyria and Babylon, and the like. In short, it records God’s work in preparing the world for the appearance of Jesus. The New Testament contains all of the Scriptures revealed to the followers of Jesus. It contains information on the birth, life, and death of Jesus; the founding of the Christian church; the spread of early Christianity; and the like. The New Testament, for the most part, is not organized chronologically.

Instead of being organized chronologically, the Bible is order by groups of books and length of those books. Genesis through Deuteronomy (known as the Law) covers creation to the exodus of Israel from Egypt and their wanderings in the desert. Joshua, Judges, and Ruth all cover the taking of the Promised Land and the establishment of the nation of Israel. First Samuel to 2 Chronicles covers the history of Israel under the rulership of kings, the splitting of the nation into Israel (north) and Judah (south), the capture of Israel by the Assyrians, and the capture of Judah by the Babylonians. Ezra Nehemiah and Esther all address Israel under Persian control, which includes the decree to allow them to return and rebuild Jerusalem. So the group of books from Joshua to Esther is known as History.

Following Esther comes a group of books known as Wisdom Literature or Poetry. This is comprised of Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. Then there is the grouping known as the Major Prophets—Isaiah to Daniel. These books are then ordered by length of chapters. Then comes the group known as the Minor Prophets. They are not called this because they are less important but because they are generally shorter than those books contained in the Major Prophets. This concludes the Old Testament.

The New Testament (NT) begins with the collection known as the Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Then Acts, the History book of the NT. Following Acts is the group known as the Pauline Epistles or Paul’s Letters—Romans to Philemon. These are all letters written by the Apostle Paul and they are ordered by length and not by date of composition. Following that is the General Epistles or General Letters—Hebrews to Jude. Once again, these are then further ordered by length. The last book of the Bible is Revelation and it is known as Apocalyptic or Prophecy. Now you have a basic understanding of how the Bible is ordered.

When the different books were written though, there were no chapter and verses in the text. These were additions to the texts at a much later date to assist in referencing passages of Scripture. Cardinal Hugo was the first to add chapter divisions. He did this in the Latin Bible in 1250 A.D. On the other hand, Robert Estienne added verses to the Greek New Testament in 1551 A.D. At this point, there was still no Bible with both chapters and verses. This would not occur until 1560 A.D. when both were placed in the Geneva Bible. Why is any of this important? Because many books of the Bible were intended to be read in a single setting and the chapter and verse divisions sometimes force a break in the flow of the text. Chapter and verse divisions are helpful, but they are not inspired. Likewise, the subheadings contained in many versions of the Bible are not inspired. These are things like “The Lord’s Prayer,” “The Parable of the Prodigal Son,” “Paul’s Longing to Visit Rome,” etc. These are added and are not inspired. The only inspired subheadings in the Bible are those contained in the Psalms.

The Bible didn’t miraculously appear one day. It was received over a very long period of time. I think this post has shown that there is a lot more to the Bible than meets the eye. So now we have seen that we can know that the Bible is the Word of God (MAPS) and how we got the Bible as we know it today, but what is so important about the Bible anyways? It is this question that will be the focus of my next post.

In the last few posts, I have been answering the question: How can we know the Bible is the Word of God? When beginning to answer this question, I introduced the acronym M-A-P-S as a way to remember the answer. The first post addressed the M: Manuscript Evidence; the second post addressed the A: Archeological Evidence; the third post addresses the P: Prophecy. These first three posts demonstrated that the Bible is reliable in regard to transmission, accurate in regard to historicity, and trustworthy in regard to its spiritual claims. This post is going to address the S: Statistical Probability. What exactly to I mean by statistical probability? I mean that when all the facts are in concerning the Bible, the statistical probability that men artificially generated the Bible is unlikely.

So what are the facts? To begin with, the Bible was written over a time period around 1500-2000 years. Furthermore, the Bible is a collection of 66 books written by 40 different authors in 4 different languages. Yet the Bible is one continuous story.

Considering those facts, let’s imagine that I challenge you to a task. My challenge is for you to generate a continuous story out of 66 books by 40 different authors. Let’s also imagine that as I issue this challenge to you, we are standing in the Library of Congress, which has millions of copies of books. In fact, it is estimated to contain 32 million cataloged books. Do you think you could accomplish this task? It is possible, but highly doubtful. But when one throws in the requirement that there be 4 different languages (The Library of Congress has books in 470 languages) and the books must span 1500-2000 years, it becomes impossible—even with millions of books at hand.

Think about the language requirement for a moment. America has only been a country for a little over two hundred years. Think how much our language has changed in that short time period. Go back just two hundred more years and English becomes essentially a different language. It would be nearly impossible for the average person to sit down and try to write a sequel to a book from the 1600’s. It would take someone familiar with Old English to take on such a task. That is what one faces when trying to claim that men sat down and came up with the books of the Bible. Not only is simply a language problem over time, but then you have completely different languages in the Bible as well.

After looking at the facts surrounding the Bible, one can come away with the confidence of knowing that it is most unlikely that men sat down and invented the Bible. What is even more emboldening is taking this in conjunction with the manuscript evidence, archeological evidence, and the specific and fulfilled prophecy contained in the Bible. Looking at four of these aspects, it become clear that the Bible is most certainly the Word of God. Some of you might be thinking, “That’s great, but how did we get the Bible? Did it fall out of the sky or something?” My next post will address this very topic—just how did get the bible as we know it today?

This is the third post of a series about the Bible—specifically some of those central and important questions asked about the Bible. The first post in this series introduced the acronym M-A-P-S as a way to remember the answer to the question, “How can we know the Bible is the Word of God?” In that first post, I discussed what the first letter represented: Manuscript Evidence. The second post addressed the A, which stands for Archeological Evidence. We saw that the Bible is trustworthy regarding its historical claims, but what about its spiritual claims? Some of the Bible’s spiritual claims are contained in its prophecies. This post is going to address the P, which stands for Prophecy. I know there is someone reading this and already thinking, “There are a lot of other ancient books that contain prophecies, what makes the Bible any different?” The difference between the Bible and other ancient books of prophecy is that the prophecies in the Bible are specific and they are fulfilled. We are going to examine just a couple of those prophecies in this post because of space constraints. My goal in this post is to demonstrate the nature of some of these prophecies and their fulfillment. It is not my intention to give an exhaustive treatment regarding all of the prophecies in the Bible that have been fulfilled.

With all of that being said, there is probably still someone thinking, “The Bible is not the only book to have prophecies that have been fulfilled. Nostradamus wrote many prophecies that have been fulfilled.” This argument simply does not hold water when all the facts are known. Did Nostradamus write prophecies? Yes, he wrote a lot of prophecies contained in what is known as Les Propheties. He recorded all of his prophecies in a particular form known as quatrains. He also used veiled language. He did this in a purposeful attempt to make it difficult to understand his prophecies. Why might he do this? It was to avoid persecution by the church. The method Nostradamus used in order to come by his predictions was Alchemy. During his lifetime, this was viewed in a bad light by the church and had even been condemned by the church in previous years. So the prophecies that people proclaim are so clearer fulfilled were written to avoid being understood by his contemporaries. Now we read them some 500 years removed and think we can understand them, I think not.

The prophecies in the Bible (for the most part) do not use veiled language but are very clear and easy to either demonstrate as fulfilled or false. Take for example the prophecy that the Israelites would be allowed to return the their homeland and rebuild Jerusalem and the temple. This was predicted in Isaiah and Jeremiah:

This is the second post in a series looking at the many questions surrounding the Bible. In my previous post, I began answering the question of how we can know the Bible is the Word of God. I gave the acronym M-A-P-S as a guide and a helpful way to remember the answer. I began by tackling the first letter in the acronym, which stands for Manuscript Evidence. I also answered the question of whether or not the Bible is riddled with errors—as many as 300,000. This post is going to deal with the second letter of the acronym, which stands for Archeological Evidence. Does archeology support the Bible or does it contradict the Bible?

Archeological Evidence
Before one can answer this with a simple yes or no, some things have to be understood about archeology, the Bible, and how the two relate. Archeology is a very limited field of study. It is a discipline in which one attempts to reconstruct the past through the evidence on hand. Now, this is not unlike modern forensics that has been so famously featured on shows like CSI: Crime Scene Investigators. However, forensics looks at recent evidence that is often abundant whereas archeologists look at ancient evidence that is often in poor shape and is rather scarce.

Often times, what archeologists are able to locate is what would be considered garbage. Discarded pottery, utensils, and human remains comprise the majority of evidence submitted into the archeological forensic laboratory. Some of these can be quite helpful. For instance, pottery is very helpful in dating an archeological site because there are very distinct patterns on pottery through different periods. However, pottery cannot tell an archeologist about the daily life of the people who owned it nor can it disclose the religious beliefs of those people.

The limits of archeology are truly highlighted by the fact that far less than 5% of historical sites have been excavated whatsoever and far fewer have been meaningfully excavated. So we have very little in terms of the available archeological evidence on hand. Furthermore, as I noted above, most of this evidence is “left-overs” from the culture. Even more problematic is the fact that most of what archeology has discovered in the way of artifacts is not published and, therefore, is not available for review or for information purposes.

It is also important to understand how archeology and the Bible relate. The Bible was not written to be a historical record. Its purpose was not to record details in a historical light; its purpose was to record details in a theological light. The Bible deals with information about God, the spiritual realm, salvation, etc. and these are all things with which archeology cannot interact.

So where does archeology fit into the Bible? While the Bible does not primarily deal with history, it does record historical facts. This is where archeology comes into play. For example, Luke records a lot in the way of historical facts in the book of Acts located in the New Testament. Likewise, there are names of people groups, cities, kings and the like mentioned throughout the Bible. This is where archeology has aimed its sights at proving or disproving the Bible.

At this point, one must note that the possibility exists for archeology to prove the Bible false on these historical facts. However, this would only prove the Bible historically inaccurate at that singular point at best and wholly inaccurate at worst. Even more important to realize though, is that this does nothing to prove or disprove the Bibles spiritual claims—and this is the Bible’s primary focus and purpose.

While the possibility exists for archeology to show the Bible historically inaccurate, this simply has not been done at this point in time. There are many places in the Bible where it has been attempted to show that archeology demonstrates the Bible to be unreliable or wrong. Some of these examples include the Exodus event, the Hittites mentioned in the Old Testament, and Luke’s details in the book of Acts.

The Exodus Event
It has long been argued that the events as recorded in the book of Exodus could not have occurred or that they vary from the account contained in the Bible. The biggest “fact” cited in opposition to the Exodus event is that no evidence can be found which places the Israelites in Egypt—at all. There is one serious problem with this notion. The Egyptians were notorious for destroying historical records. Some of these examples include the “erasing” of Queen Hatshepsut (see left), the Hyksos rulers, and Akhenaten. With examples like these of strong revisionist history in Egypt, should it come as a surprise that there is no evidence in Egypt that the Israelites were there—slaves that eventually ruined their land and then left without as much as a skirmish.

Even though this is the case, there is a discovery that corroborates the timeline of the Exodus event. The discovery is known as Merneptah’s Stele (see right). It is a catalogue honoring Pharoah Merneptah’s military campaigns leading up to his defeat of the Libyans. The stele mentions his defeat of Israel and places them in the land of Canaan at about the same time as what is recorded in the book of Judges or possibly the end of Joshua.

The Hittites
For a long time, the naming of this and other people groups mentioned in the Old Testament (specifically Genesis) was cited because there was no evidence of them. However, recent archeological finds discovered documents and remains of what is considered to be their capital city located in modern day Turkey.

Luke’s Historical Record in Acts
For centuries, scholars attempted to show that Luke was not an accurate historian because he incorrectly used names regions, cities, routes, etc. One of the specific instances of this was Luke’s use of politarchai to describe the city officials in Thessalonica. This criticism has been shown to be unfounded since the word was inscribed in stone at the base of an arch as well as in several other inscriptions. So the argument that Luke made this word up because it was not used anywhere else simply failed to materialize in support of the claim that Luke was inaccurate when recording the names and places found in Acts.

Archeology has not proven the Bible to be historically wrong thus far. In fact, it seems quite the opposite has been the case. Where archeology and the Bible has intersected, it has demonstrated the Bible to be historically accurate. But can the Bible be trusted with its spiritual claims? It is this question I will answer in the next post.

It seems like there is no scarcity of questions regarding the receiving and transmission of the books contained in the Bible. Questions like: How can we know that the Bible is the Word of God? How did we get the Bible as we know it today? Why is the Bible so important anyways? These are important questions that deserve answers. Much of Christian practice and beliefs is rooted and founded upon the Bible. Therefore, the answers to these questions shape how a Christian will approach the Bible and then apply the truths they see contained therein to everyday life—both for the individual and the church. This will be the first post of many, which are going to be devoted entirely to answering those questions. And the first question is...

How can we know that the Bible is the Word of God?
The answer is simply M-A-P-S. This is the acronym that I like to use in order to give people a way to remember the information. One reason I particularly like giving this acronym is because nearly every Bible in print today contains a section of maps in the back.

Manuscript Evidence
Archeological Evidence
Prophecy
Statistical Probability

Manuscript Evidence
When one looks at the manuscript evidence regarding the Scriptures, it is abundant and convincing. For comparison, take Plato’s Tetralogies. There are only 7 copies in existence and those copies are 1,200 years removed from the time Plato penned the work. Pliny the Younger, who was a historian in the first century AD, penned his historical writings of which we only have 7 copies that are 750 years removed from the time he composed his work. Furthermore, Homer’s Iliad, which has arguably the best manuscript evidence of all the writings of the ancient world, has only 600 copies in existence that are 1,000 years removed from the original date of composition. When textual critics look at these documents they do not question the reliability of them but regard them as historically accurate.

How does the Bible stack up in comparison? The Old Testament has a great abundance of manuscript evidence—over 11,000 copies. These copies include the Septuagint (LXX), which was a Greek translation of the Hebrew texts. It also includes the Qumran texts more popularly known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are some of the earliest copies we have today. There are a lot of other copies that give a wealth of information regarding the Old Testament texts. This towers over the evidence of all other ancient documents, like Homer’s Iliad, Plato, Pliny the Younger, etc. But does the New Testament also have the same abundance of information?

The New Testament also has a lot of copies available, some 5,366. The New Testament has received a lot more attention than the Old Testament. Authors such as Bart Ehrman appear to constantly be attacking the New Testament. What is interesting about these attacks is not that he argues the textual support is lacking in the way of sheer volume of copies, but that the copies have been corrupted. So you hear Ehrman and others throwing out statements similar to the following: “The New Testament contains over 300,000 errors.” That sounds like a whole lot of errors and would be reason enough to question the reliability of the New Testament. However, a quick introduction to textual criticism will help clear up this statement that seems to deal such a fatal blow to the reliability of the Bible.

Textual criticism is the study of manuscripts by comparing copies to one another in order to determine the original reading of the source document. Comparing these documents side-by-side yields a pretty good picture of what errors were introduced into the text; the more copies available and the closer those copies are to the original, the better textual critics can determine what errors were introduced. Now, how do we get a number like 300,000 when there aren’t even that many words in the New Testament (there are only 181,253 words)? It is because of the way errors are counted. Spelling errors are counted in that number. Also, if a spelling error is copied 100 times, that is 101 errors. When a word is copied twice, that is an error. How did this happen? Sometimes those copying the texts would take a break to eat, sleep, or something else and would come back and they would copy the same same word two times, consecutively. Every time this error was copied, it counts as another error. Words copied out of order are also counted as errors. Now, this might sound like a big deal at first, but English and Greek are very different in regard to grammar. Word order is not as important in Greek as English. In other words, there is not subject verb agreement necessary in the Greek; word order was used mainly for emphasis. Once again, every time this was copied, it is counted as another error. Once you understand this, it becomes easy to see how one can get to a number like 300,000 errors.

In reality, there are only three places in the New Testament that have any question about authenticity. The first of these three places is found at the end of the gospel of Mark. Many newer translations make note of this fact. The New International Version (NIV) puts a line through the middle of the page after verse 8 and before verse 9 with the statement: The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20. Other translations such as the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the English Standard Version (ESV), and the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) don’t make note of it in the same dramatic manner as the NIV, but they all make note with brackets or parenthesis and a note to the same effect as the NIV. The scholars have discovered that many of the earliest copies did not have these verses, but the vast majority of the later copies did contain these verses. The NIV translators felt there was enough evidence to question the authenticity of these verses, but rather than risk removing something that could possibly have been original in the text they came to the resolution to make a note that these verses were questionable. However, even if these verses were left out of the gospel of Mark, they change nothing concerning salvation; the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; or that Jesus was God in the flesh.

The second place that is questioned is located in the gospel of John. The passage in question is the story of the woman caught in adultery and brought to Jesus by the Pharisees. Once again the NIV separates out this section with a line across the page and the statement: The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11. Just like the passage in the gospel of Mark, this passage changes no doctrine of the church whatsoever. The last place in question is found in 1 John. Here, the passage is almost certainly an addition to the text. Following is 1 John 5:7-8 quoted first as it reads in the NIV and then the KJV (emphasis mine):