Why I Choose to Believe the Bible
Here we get into some of the specifics behind the phrase, “I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents, written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses; they report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies, and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin.”
This sentence comes from the following lecture by Voddie Baucham Jr.
The sentence is a summary and consolidation of the following passage of scripture.
Let’s walk through the different components of it.
A Reliable Collection of Historical Documents
There are actually three points being made in this brief phrase, and we’ll walk through them in reverse order.
Historical
First the Bible is a historical document, being written over a period of about 1500 years. The first five books of the Bible were written down around 1400 BC,[1] and the New Testament was completed toward the end of the first century AD.[2] While the Bible contains a variety of literary forms, it is intended to provide a historically accurate account of God’s dealings with his people and the world. This is particularly evident with the gospel of Luke.
Luke was a physician and historian who set out to compile a detailed and orderly historical account of all that had happened in the life of Jesus.[3] This wasn’t just mythology, as mentioned in 2 Peter 1:16, or embellished storytelling; rather, it was first-century investigative journalism reporting on events as they actually happened. Scholars have long debated the historicity of the biblical account, but archaeological discoveries continue to support scripture, and as of yet no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted it.[4]
Collection
As can be expected, having been written over ~1500 years, the Bible is not a single document, but rather a collection of documents. It’s comprised of 66 books, written by over 40 different authors from all walks of life.[5] These authors wrote in three different languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.[6] The books were written on three different continents: Asia, Africa, and Europe. The Bible isn’t a book that any one person generated on their own, as a number of other religious texts are. Rather, dozens of authors, spread across a variety of cultures, locations, time periods, and languages, deliver a historically accurate and self-consistent testimony of God’s interactions with mankind.
Reliable
Even if we have a collection of historical documents, how do we know those documents are reliable? There are actually two questions to tackle here:
How do we know what was originally written was accurate?
How do we know what we have today matches what was originally written?
The first question we’ll get to momentarily, so let’s tackle the second, and we’ll do so by examining a few different areas of analysis.
Bible Translation
You may hear that the translation of scripture has played out like a game of telephone over the last few millenia. First it was written in Hebrew, then translated to Greek, then into Latin, then old English, then eventually into modern English. Naturally with that many layers of translation, there are bound to be errors that creep in that get propagated and then exaggerated over time. At face value, that may seem like a legitimate concern, however the story is fictitious. The Bible isn’t translated from translations; rather, Bible translaters go back to the ancient manuscripts written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Not only that, but if you were to take the time to learn those languages, you could go back to those same documents yourself (or at least digital versions of them) and verify that the translations we have today line up with what was originally written.[7]
Early Copies
Unfortunately you can’t go back to the original documents, as the media on which they were written (papyrus and the like) were highly susceptible to degradation over time. However, we do have a remarkable number of ancient copies of the original documents. The numbers will vary, depending on how you count, but one number is we have 5,856 manuscripts of the New Testament in Greek, with the earliest ones dating to 130 A.D. or earlier, which puts them within a few decades of the New Testament of having been completed. If you then consider the translations of the New Testament into other languages of the people (e.g., Syriac, Coptic, Latin, etc.), the number of manuscripts jumps up to about 24,000. If you want to consider scrolls and codices containing sections of the Old Testament, that adds another ~42,000 manuscripts, bringing the total to roughly 66,000 ancient manuscripts against which we can compare modern Bible translations.[7]
Early Church Fathers
In addition to all the ancient manuscripts in the original languages, plus the number of early translations, we also have the evidence of the early church fathers.
“… the textual critic has available the numerous scriptural quotations included in the commentaries, sermons, and other treatises written by the early Church fathers. Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament.”[8]
If we just consider what was written before the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., we already have over 36,000 citations of scripture.[7]
Other Ancient Works
For the sake of comparison, let’s see how other ancient works stack up against the Bible. Homer’s Iliad, for instance, was written around 1200 BC and we have about 1900 manuscripts of it, with the earliest one dating to around 415 BC (an ~800-year gap). Caesar’s Gallic Wars was written around 50 BC, but the earliest manuscript we have is from around 850 AD (a ~900-year gap), and we only have about 250 manuscripts total. Livy’s History of Rome was written around 10 BC, the earliest manuscript we have is from ~350 years later, and at this point we have about 500 manuscripts. We could examine more examples, but in terms of surviving source material, the Bible is the most well-supported ancient work; other books, the reliability of which we don’t think twice about, don’t even come close.[7]
Written Down by Eyewitnesses
Now that we’ve established the accurate transmission of scripture from when it was originally written to today, let’s return to the question of whether or not what was originally written was accurate. We saw earlier in 2 Peter 1:16 that Peter mentions they were eyewitnesses of the majesty of Christ. Let’s see what John has to say about it.
John also hammers home that they saw, heard, and touched everything that they’re writing about. These aren’t just fanciful tales; rather, the authors wrote about the events they actually experienced, or wrote their works after compiling such eyewitness testimony. Such accounts are crucial to, for instance, criminal and legal proceedings, as the presence of eyewitness testimony adds substantial credibility to any claims being made, as you’re getting the information straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.[9]
Well hang on a second, what if the eyewitness happens to be lying? That’s why this next phrase is so important.
During the Lifetime of Other Eyewitnesses
In a legal context, if an eyewitness claims one thing, and it’s possible for another eyewitness to turn up and claim the opposite, the initial claim is what we call falsifiable.[10] Put simply, that means that people can prove that you’re lying. If you’re an eyewitness making a claim, knowing that there are other eyewitnesses to the same event that can speak up and falsify whatever you say, you’re going to be very careful about what you say or write down.
Note
When googling the term “falsifiable”, you often find results pertaining to the context of the scientific method, but it also pertains to matters that can be falsified by other means such as historical evidence.
It’s worthwhile here to focus in on one event in scripture rather than trying to tackle all of it at once: the resurrection of Jesus. Eyewitnesses claim that Jesus was crucified, was very much dead (not just mostly dead), was raised to life again, and interacted with hundreds of people before ascending to heaven. Such eyewitnesses testimony could easily be falsified by, for instance, producing the dead body, or proving that the man claiming to be the resurrected Jesus was not the same Jesus that was crucified. Why should we just focus on the resurrection? Let’s see what Paul has to say about that.
If the story of Jesus’ resurrection is a lie, all the claims of Christianity fall apart; however, if it’s true, then all those claims hold together.[11] Paul was writing 1 Corinthians only about 20 years after the resurrection took place, so many of the original eyewitnesses to it were still available to corroborate or contradict what he says here.[12] However, the claims of the resurrection were not falsified,[13] and there were a number of people who would have gladly done so if they could have.[14]
They Report Supernatural Events
Now if we were to stop after, “I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents, written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses,” all we would have is a really good history book. What sets it apart from other really good history books is that the authors record supernatural events, and what’s meant by that term isn’t merely super-human feats, but things that are completely outside the laws of nature: speaking the universe into existence out of nothing (Genesis 1), the parting of the Red Sea (Exodus 14), making the sun stand still for a day (Joshua 10), the virgin birth (Matthew 1), walking on water (Mark 6), rising from the dead (Luke 24), and the list goes on. Up above in 2 Peter 1:17–18, Peter recounts the story of the transfiguration, where he, James, and John witnessed Jesus being revealed in his glory, conversing with Moses and Elijah in bodily form, along with the voice of God speaking from heaven. Why is the supernatural significant? Because this really good history book doesn’t just contain theology, or religious or political philosophy. It’s an account of how the supernatural creator and sustainer of all existence interacts with both his creation in general, and you, the reader, specifically.[15]
That Took Place in Fulfillment of Specific Prophecies
Above in 2 Peter 1:19, Peter speaks of the confirmation of the prophetic word, where he’s talking about the prophecies from scripture that were fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It’s important to note that these foretellings of future events in the Bible aren’t what you get from the likes of Nostradamus or the horoscope section of the paper. Here we’re talking about specific predictions that were fulfilled in very specific ways. How many are we talking about? It depends on how you count them, but a safe estimate is at least 300.[16] We won’t dive into all of them here (though you’re encouraged to do so); instead we’ll just focus on two.
Apparently it’s common in the regular readings within the Jewish community to read the first part of Isaiah 52, then skip over chapter 53, and pick back up with chapter 54.[17]
Now if you were to read that chapter to someone but not tell them where it comes from, chances are they could tell you it was about Jesus, and they might assume it comes from somewhere in the New Testament. In actuality, this vivid depiction of the week leading up to Jesus’ death was written by Isaiah roughly 700 years before Jesus walked the face of the earth.
For this next example, it’s important to realize that the subdivision of our Bibles into chapters and verses is a relatively recent development. If you wanted to direct people to a particular passage of scripture, you wouldn’t say, “Turn in your Bibles to [book, chapter, and verse],” but rather, “Open the scroll to [first line of the passage],” and you would have an idea of where that was and what comes next. Using that kind of memory technique actually works rather well. For instance, if I were to say, “Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away,” you instantly start thinking of the rest of the Beatles’ song. Or when I say, “Somebody once told me,” the rest of Smash Mouth’s All Star is already playing in your head.
Why does this matter? If you’ve heard the story of Jesus’ crucifixion, you probably remember in Matthew 27:46 where Jesus, on the cross, cries out, “Eloi, eloi, lama sabacthani,” and then the text goes on to say that the translation of that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Had you ever wondered why the text was phrased that way? It turns out the words Jesus cries out are the opening words to Psalm 22, which for those hearing him would have called to mind the rest of the passage.
This description of Jesus’ death was written roughly 1000 years before it happened. Why do such fulfillments of prophecy matter? Because they are substantial evidence in support of our final point, to which we’ll now turn.[18]
And Claim That Their Writings Are Divine Rather than Human in Origin
Back up in 2 Peter 1:20–21, Peter tells us that “men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” Similarly:
We use the terms inspired or inspiration to refer to the process by which God caused human authors to record his words for the sake of communicating them to the world. God is the ultimate author of the Bible.
“[T]he technical theological sense of inspiration, largely lost in the secular atmosphere of our time, is clearly asserted by the Scriptures with a special view to the sacred writers and their writings. Defined in this sense, inspiration is a supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit upon divinely chosen agents in consequence of which their writings become trustworthy and authoritative.”[19]
Now there are some who either knowingly or unknowingly hold to the opinion that we really can’t trust the Bible to accurately convey God’s truth to us because ultimately it was written by fallible human beings. Following that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion means we really can’t trust any book (as they were all written by humans) and so we really can’t know anything with certainty. There are some who adamantly hold to such an epistemology (a view of what is knowable and how you can know it), but most will see such a view as being out of touch with reality. All truth is God’s truth.[20] Rather than approach a text with the question of who wrote it, we should first approach it with the question of whether or not it’s true.[21] The source of the information can contribute to your assessment of the trustworthiness of the information, but to say, “this information came from [source], therefore it must be false,” is an example of the genetic fallacy.
Others will argue that we can’t believe such an audacious claim (that the Bible is divine in origin) unless we can prove it to be true scientifically. This reveals another epistemological flaw: thinking that the only things that are knowable are those that can be proven by the scientific method, meaning they must be observable, measurable, and repeatable. However, that methodology does not apply when trying to ascertain the veracity of historical matters, such as the inspiration of scripture or the details of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, as history meets none of the criteria for operational scientific inquiry. Instead you use the historical method, which involves examining the provenance of source material, determining its credibility, seeking out eyewitness testimony, and the like. If you’re familiar with crime procedurals on television, this is how they go about etablishing the facts of the case.
So What?
Whether or not you believe any of the claims mentioned above, why does any of this matter? Well consider this for a moment: If we have a reliable collection of historical documents, arguably the most verifiably accurate ancient history book the world has ever known… If those documents contain eyewitness testimony making claims that were never falsified by the other eyewitnesses to the same events… If that testimony recounts events comepletely outside the realm of natural phenomena, which were predicted in astounding detail, sometimes hundreds of years in advance, and if the book claims its ultimate author is the all-powerful creator and sustainer of absolutely everything in existence, including me, then I really need to take some time to figure out what it says about
who I am,
why I’m here,
what’s wrong with the world, and
how what’s wrong can be made right.
If you’re skeptical of any of this, it can be tempting to fall victim to what I call Scarlett O’Hara syndrome:
“I can’t think about that right now. If I do, I’ll go crazy. I’ll think about that tomorrow.”
It’s also far too easy to think, “Gosh, this is just so much to take in, I don’t think I buy it,” (an example of the fallacy of personal incredulity). Rather than letting your skepticism end where it begins, I encourage you to engage with the material and wrestle with the truth claims. Look into the references below to see what they have to say. If you’re not sure about certain points, talk them through with someone. This brief write-up isn’t meant to answer all your questions; it merely scratches the surface. Countless individuals have devoted their lives to backing up these claims with far more proficiency than I ever could.
For the Christian, we point to scripture because it is the trustworthy source with which all our answers must agree. If at any point our thinking doesn’t line up with the truths God’s revealed to us in the Bible, that’s a problem.
References