Dr. Matthew Harmon faces the two hottest questions about the Bible (pdf file):
Assaults on the Bible are nothing new, but there seems to be a new twist over the past decade. Two objections against the Bible have become more prominent. The first charge is that the various books in our Bible were chosen hundreds of years after they were written, and the choice was made by shady church leaders with ulterior motives. The second charge is that we cannot trust our Bibles because what we have is not really what the authors actually wrote.
Hat Tip: Between Two Worlds
_______________
Possibly related posts (automatically generated):
The objections assume that God is either not intelligent enough, powerful enough or caring enough, to see that we get his Word passed on to us accurately.
Claudia–
Or that there is no God.
The fool says in his heart…
…that the fool says in his heart…
Sorry I don’t have time to read Harmon’s entire essay, but isn’t it so: the Bible was indeed “collected” – even the Old Testament had some discretionary work put into the Canon. Hence you need to believe in some sort of Divine inspiration for the Canon setters, or else why consider those books inerrant/revelatory and not the ones left out etc? So are the Apocrypha really “the word of God”, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospel of Peter, etc? The Catholic Church uses the Apocrypha, so there is some tradition there.
Some argue (usually Catholics), that in that case, other decisions by the Church should have inherent authority.
I’m not expecting or asking anyone to fold on seek inspiration in what we’ve got, but do hope for a quality response.
Also translation does have an effect on some delicate meanings. Note the mistake of the KJV translators, in saying “replenish the Earth” in Genesis in the creation story. Some took that to mean there were strange personages before Adam and Eve etc. (Lilith?) The phrase should really be, “fill the Earth” as it now reads in most translations. However, this incident shows how honest the KJV translators were, in putting down what they thought the words meant instead of “correcting” them to show what they “should have” meant.
BTW, which MSs are best in anyone’s opinion? The old Textus Receptus, or more recent finds?
Hey, Captcha coincidance again:
others obelisks –
Note the obelisk in St. Peter’s square, and my discussion touching on the Canon (set by the Catholic Church), “other books” and argument thereof.
Hi Neil,
What do you mean that the Bible was collected?
The NT was well-known and circulated among the people of whom it spoke within the first century and only a few of the currently accepted books were universally accepted then. By early in the second century the Gospels themselves traveled as a four-part collection and Paul’s letters were also collected and distributed as a unit. Both sets, though separately bound, are marked as belonging to the same collection know as the New Testament. It’s not like some strange body came along three hundred years later and started sifting through stacks of equally reliable material to decide what they liked. The believers, from whom the Church grew, already had known the Apostles, already accepted their teachings and already accepted their writings. The first Church Fathers were known to the Apootles and received their teaching directly. The Biblical authors knew one another and knew of each other’s writings and endorsed them Even Paul, when he wrote to Timothy, referred to Luke’s writings and quoted him alongside Moses when he was talking about the inspiration of Scripture. Peter wrote of Paul’s letters and discussed how they were Scripture and how they could be difficult to read. They had followers in common who later write about them and their teachings. They don;t write of the apocryphal “gospels”, except later to denounce them.
There was never any real question that books like the G of Peter or Thomas were Scriptural. Thomas, for all the attempts by skeptics to place it in the first century (isn’t it odd how they’d love to late date the Gospels but take any excuse to say Thomas was mid first century) was written in later second century Syriac and relies upon the Diatessaron, which is, of course, the harmonization of the four real Gospels.
By the way, I didn;t read the pdf either because the link doesn’t quite work.
Here it is.
http://www.gotnodoubt.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Bible-How-Did-We-Get-It-and-Is-It-Reliable1.pdf
I’ve read it now, Neil, and would point you back to it.
In the time you can write another comment of questions and then read a response you will likely have found the answer in Harmon.