Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis: The word of Fallible Man or the Authority of God's Word?

"Obviously what I’m saying to you is, what the church is doing is taking outside ideas [i.e., man’s word], adding to Scriptures.... It’s undermining biblical authority." ~Ken Ham "Stop Trusting Man's Word: Genesis and Compromise" [DVD] (1:12:59)

Also Ken Ham (emphasis mine):

"I’ve told people that really the ministry of Answers in Genesis, the Ark Encounter, and Creation Museum—that impacts tens of millions of people directly and tens of millions more indirectly each year—is a legacy of parents who taught their children to stand boldly and uncompromisingly on the authority of the Word of God.

What legacy will you leave for your children?

'A good man leaves an inheritance [legacy] to his children’s children' (Proverbs 13:22 ESV)."
~Ken Ham
October 26, 2023

God's Word:

"A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children, but the sinner's wealth is laid up for the righteous." ~Proverbs 13:22 (ESV)

Not only does Mr. Ham take Proverbs 13:22 out of context, cut off the second half of the passage and insert "legacy" (along with all of the interpretive connotations he associates with the word) into the text alongside the Hebrew word yan·ḥîl (יַנְחִ֥יל) (i.e., inheritance/possessions) he then proceeded to publish this adulterated passage on Answers in Genesis (A Father's Legacy), his social media feeds (Facebook) and also features it prominently in a large plaque above his father's bible in the Ham Family Legacy exhibit at the Creation Museum (see photo montage in the article: "A Father's Legacy").

At first, I thought this was a one-off occurrence. But then I did some more digging and found more examples where Ken and AiG are blatantly twisting Scripture to make God’s Word align with their teachings.

"As soon as you allow the world’s interpretations, beliefs, fads, and philosophies to be your standard, true biblical unity is impossible. And those who still start with and believe God’s Word must leave for the health of their congregations.

'For there must be factions [divisions] among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.' (1 Corinthians 11:19)"

~Ken Ham

"Can Division in the Church Be a Good Thing?"

Feb. 12, 2024

"I've had conservative pastors tell me I don't want to teach Genesis 1 to11 like you do and that's because it'll create division and I just don't want to create division, you know? Does the Bible say division is bad? It doesn't, actually.

"I know it talks about unity, but also Paul talks about division and that there has to be division to show who's approved of God, he says in Corinthians [1 Corinthians 11:19]. And so, as I say to people, when you shine light in darkness, if you're not creating division for the right reasons, the right sort of division, you need to ask yourself, 'What are you doing?' If pastors are not creating the right sort of division for the right reasons, then what are you doing? Right? Because light is going to create division and it should.”
~Ken Ham
My Faith Votes Interview
Aug. 16, 2022

Here again Ken removes Scripture from its proper context and adds his own interpretive commentary to the text (indicated by brackets) in order to make the passage say what he wants it to say–which in this case is the exact opposite of what this verse actually says in context.

"17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part,19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not."

~1 Corinthians 11:17-22 (ESV)

Paul does not say it is necessary for there to be divisions to show who is genuine/approved of God. In fact, he criticizes the Corinthians for having divisions (schismata [σχίσματα]) in the preceding verse. Ken has to insert "division(s)" into the English translation of the text in order to make it say what he wants it to say.

The Greek word translated to mean "factions" in the ESV is "haireseis" (αἱρέσεις). Properly: "a self-chosen opinion, a religious or philosophical sect (i.e., heresy), discord or contention."

Paul is not lauding the Corinthians for having divisions in their church. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 1:10-14, he addresses this very issue, stating quite plainly that we should not be divided (schismata [σχίσματα]) into different camps over secondary matters (in the specific case of 1 Corinthians 10-14, it was different teachers) but that we should all be united in Christ.

1 Corinthians 11:19 is a dual case of Pauline irony and eschatological commentary (as evidenced by Paul’s usage of (dokimoi [δόκιμοι]) [approved] to denote those who are genuine in their faith). Nothing in the surrounding verses indicates that it is good to have divisions in the church. In fact, Paul literally has nothing good to say about the Corinthians’ behavior in this passage!

The key to understanding this passage is the term "in the church." There will naturally be division between the church (i.e., The Kingdom of God/ Body/ Bride of Christ) and the world. Jesus himself stated as much in Luke 12:51-53. But the world is not the church. Sheep are not goats (Matthew 25:31-46). Bad trees cannot bear good fruit (Matthew 7:15-20).

While there will be those within the congregation of believers who are not truly united to Christ, we must remember that it is God, not us, who will ultimately separate the genuine believers from the counterfeit and test the quality of the believers’ works (Revelation 20:11-15, 1 Corinthians 3:10-17). Furthermore, the distinction between those whose faith is genuine and those who are counterfeit is not based on a person’s stance on some secondary issue, but rather their response to the Gospel–whether or not they are known by Christ and have their names written in the Book of Life. We cannot rightly use our personal preferences, interpretations or convictions regarding secondary matters which are not clearly addressed in Scripture as a litmus test to determine who among our brothers and sisters in Christ are truly "approved of God." Yet Ken Ham, and by extension Answers in Genesis, wants to spin 1 Corinthians 11:19 to imply that we should have–and indeed actively seek to cause–division over "the right things.” By which he most often means his interpretation of Genesis 1-11 and a few other select prooftexts scattered throughout Scripture.

Yes, I agree with Ken and Answers in Genesis that we should not celebrate or tolerate sin within the church (something which is plainly stated in 1 Corinthians 5) and that we cannot be united in Christ with individuals who deny or subvert essential Christian doctrines. But I strongly disagree with AiG's position that the creation vs. evolution debate is a "division [made] for the right reasons." Contrary to Mr. Ham, stirring up divisions over secondary and tertiary issues is not a mark of God's approval–it actually contradicts God's Word on several counts (Proverbs 6:16-19, Titus 3:9, Romans 16:17-18, etc.).

All that to say, if a teacher has to remove Scripture from its proper context or (literally) insert their own interpretation or ideas into the text in order to make it say what they want it to say, they are not a teacher of God's Word. That Ken Ham and AiG's hypocrisy here is so public and so well attested is alarming, to say the least. But what is more worrisome is the fact that Ken has seemingly conditioned "tens of millions" of his followers to accept whatever he says about Scripture without question.

This is very alarming and very dangerous. We should never allow our leaders to rise so high in our eyes that they are above reproach or correction. There must always be accountability for those who claim to teach God's Word. This is how we safeguard both the Gospel and the church (i.e., the individual people) from those who would abuse them for personal gain.

As troubling as this may be to hear, Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis, by and large, are not teaching God’s Word. They are teaching Ken Ham’s personal interpretation (i.e., "man-made ideas") as if it is God’s Word, and are selectively citing passages that can be spun to fit his narrative. This is not good. And people who support Ken and AiG should hold him and his organization–which lauds itself as "teaching people to stand boldly and uncompromisingly on the authority of God’s infallible Word from the very first verse"–accountable for their public mistreatment of God’s Word.    See Also: Six Non-Essential Doctrines Connected to the Age of the Earth

Six Non-Essential Doctrines Connected to the Age of the Earth

The following is a critique of the "Six Essential Doctrines Connected to the Age of the Earth" presented in the article Does the Age of the Earth Matter to the Gospel? and the Is Genesis History? Bible study. 

1. God has accurately revealed the history of the universe and man’s role in it. To allegorize or de-historicize any of those historical events is to question the ability of special revelation to speak clearly about history.

A Christian can easily affirm the historicity of Genesis without affirming the Young Earth Creationist interpretative model. The majority of Old Earth Creationists affirm that Genesis 1-11 is historical, as do some proponents of Theistic Evolution/Evolutionary Creationism. The disagreement between Old Earth and Young Earth interpretations of Genesis 1-11 lies in how best to interpret the six creation days (yôm [יוֹם]); the extent of the Great Flood; and whether or not the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are complete or telescoped for theological purposes (as we see in other biblical genealogies such as those found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke). Old Earth Creationists generally do not discredit the historicity of Genesis 1-11 or attempt to allegorize it.

For example: Dr. Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe) posits that the six creation days should be understood as six, consecutive ages (which is a primary, literal definition of the Hebrew word yôm). Conversely, Dr. John Lennox (johnlennox.org) believes the six days to be literal, 24-hour days marking particular points in history whereby God spoke a new facet of creation into existence. However, Dr Lennox believes that these days are not consecutive days of a normal Earth week, but are instead separated by a long, unspecified period of time. Both interpretations maintain that the creation days are literal and represent actual history, while at the same time countering the Young Earth Creationist claim that each of the six creation days are conservative, 24-hour days in a normal Earth week. 

2. God created the entire universe fully-functional in six normal days. To greatly extend the length of time and significantly alter events transforms the doctrine of creation into a slow, indirect, and death-filled process; this, in turn, transforms one’s view of God and His nature.

Extending the length of the creation days does not necessarily mean that one believes God's creative act to be a slow, indirect process. By this logic one could argue that God's redemptive plan is a slow, indirect process simply because God did not move to end Satan once and for all in Eden. If God is truly sovereign, then why bother waiting? If God could deal with sin on the spot in Eden, then why go through the incarnation or the agony of crucifixion and death?

God exists outside of our space-time and is not bound by the limitations of his creation. Nothing in God's plan happens early or late. Everything happens according to his plan, precisely when he means it to. The creation does not get to dictate how and when God created. We do not get to place limits on God by telling him that he could only create in six, literal days or that he had to create over billions of years. God is the creator of all. He could have created the universe however and whenever he wanted to. Our role as his creation is to submit to him, regardless of how long it took him to create the universe. 

3. God formed Adam and Eve in His image at the beginning, thereby ensuring His image would be reflected somewhere in the universe at every point in its history. If one places long ages before man’s creation, it means God’s image has been missing from creation for almost all of its history.

This is a bit of an odd statement, and more than a little concerning from a theological perspective. Even though humanity's role as God's image-bearers is vital to understanding our place in God's plan, it is not an essential element of the gospel. Nor is it a vital and/or necessary aspect of God's creative act in that the universe is (and was at the time of creation) capable of functioning quite well without us. The created universe is essential for human beings to exist, but we are not essential for the universe to exist.

Arguing that God needed to ensure that his image was reflected in the creation from the beginning implies that God created the physical universe and mankind specifically to make up for a deficit in his being–he needed to have something other than himself to reflect his image "at every point in history."

We must remember that the created universe was made, first and foremost, for God's glory according to his pleasure. He did not need to create anything at all. Nor did he need to create mankind to be his image-bearers–he chose to.

Furthermore, insisting that mankind had to be present from the beginning of creation in order to ensure that God's image would be reflected at every point in history downplays the fact that, according to the most literal, straightforward reading of the text, mankind was not created until day six. There were five whole days of creation in which there were no people to reflect God's image! If this were truly an essential element of Christian doctrine or the created order, then we would expect to find the creation of man on day one not day six!

Additionally, if we maintain that man's presence in creation was necessary in order for God's image to be reflected at all points in history, we must therefore also conclude that the universe was in some way broken for the first five days of creation as God's image was absent from creation until day six. Obviously, the creation was incomplete before the creation of Eve (ie. God's final creative act). But this in no way implies that the creation was incapable of functioning without the presence of a divine image-bearer.

Of course, the necessity of having something and/or someone to reflect God's image at all points in history is not an essential doctrine of Christianity, the gospel, or the Bible overall. Which is what makes this particular argument for the Young Earth interpretation so odd. 

4. God cursed the creation as a result of Adam’s sin, bringing death and corruption into a very good world. To say that there were billions of years of corruption and death before Adam’s sin means God created a universe filled with death. This not only changes one's view of the fall, but of the nature of our redemption in time.

The debate over whether or not animal death was a part of God's original creation lies in how to interpret Paul's use of "the world" (kosmon [κόσμον]) in Romans 5:12. Does Paul here mean that sin and death entered into the created order through Adam? Or is Paul using kosmon the same way it is used in Romans 12:2 and John 3:16 to refer to the inhabitants of the Earth (ie. mankind)?

Nowhere in Scripture does it explicitly say that God cursed the creation with death on account of Adam's sin. (The Bible also does not explicitly say that animals died prior to the fall of man.) Romans 5:12 clearly states that death spread to all humans because all humans sin. Likewise, Romans 8:19-23 says nothing of the creation itself being cursed with death on account of Adam's transgression. Instead, we find that the creation was subjected to frustration (mataiotēti [ματαιότητι]) and decay (phthoras [φθορᾶς]), not death and decay. (To be fair, the New Living Translation does insert the word death into Romans 8:21 even though the word is absent in the Greek.) 

The word mataiotēti can also be translated as futility or vanity (as seen in the Interlinear Bible produced by Hendrickson Publishers). This seems to be an allusion to what we see in the Book of Ecclesiastes which emphasizes the futility of a life lived apart from the knowledge of God.

Pathoras, the word translated as decay in Romans 8:21, can also mean corruption, or rottenness. Again, in the greater context of Romans, Paul seems to be referring to moral and/or spiritual corruption and the broken world-system(s) created by fallen human beings (ie. kosmon) rather than the whole of creation itself. Romans 8:19-23 would therefore seem to have less to do with physical death and more to do with the spiritual consequences of sin, given the overall context of Romans itself.

One final point of note is that Genesis 1 does not claim that the original creation was perfect. God declared the creation to be "very good" (meod towb [מְאֹ֑ד ט֖וֹב]). (You will notice that the original article makes a subtle note of this as well, though it does not go out of its way to draw attention to the distinction.) 

God did not say that his creation was perfect, blameless, without blemish, spot or defect (tamim [תָּמִים]). He said that it was very good. Yet many people throughout history have attempted to shoehorn perfection into the text. After all, how could a good and perfect God create anything less than perfect?

However, when we impose our understanding of perfection onto God's claim that the creation was good, we are essentially judging God and his creation by our definition of what we think perfection should look like (ie. Heaven and/or the New Creation described in Scripture) rather than submitting to God's definition of what he found to be "very good" (that is: operating according to his will, plan and purpose).

If God gave an imperfect creation his stamp of approval and we attempt to change what God said in order to imply that everything was perfect according to our definition of perfection, then we are essentially telling our creator what he can and cannot do with his creation, rather than letting him define his own terms. 

We must also remember that God created Satan and the angels who fell with him, as well as Adam, Eve and every other human soul, with the capacity to sin. They were not perfect in the same sense that God is perfect. Furthermore, anything God creates will naturally be less than he is in some respect simply due to the fact that God created the creation. A creature and/or creation cannot be equal to or greater than its creator–it will always be less than the one who created it. This is the nature of the creator-creature relationship. 

All that to say, if God were to say that animal death was acceptable as part of his plan for this creation, then who are we to tell God that he is wrong for creating such a world? God is the creator–he can do whatever he wants to do however he wants to do it. He could have created a perfect world without the possibility of sin or any sort of death. Or he could have created a world where animal death was an essential mechanism for a balanced and life-sustaining ecosystem just as easily. Likewise, humans could have been created innately immortal or humans could have been created with the capacity to die if they were ever to sin and break fellowship with God (the latter case seems to be the more likely scenario given what we see in Genesis 3:22-24).

In many respects, this topic in particular speaks volumes in regard to our fallen nature. We who worship and revere God hold his character in high regard. Yet, in our pious zeal, we may actually find ourselves guilty of judging God by our own flawed standards. It is therefore crucial for us to recognize that God's ways are not our ways, and his thoughts are not like our thoughts. We must let God be the judge of what is and is not good, rather than ourselves. 

5. God judged the entire world with a global flood, killing all land creatures, birds, and people. The idea of a local flood not only violates the history revealed in special revelation, but it denies the past reality of global judgment in space and time, thereby casting doubt on the universality of the judgment to come.

The theological bedrock of a historic flood is universal judgment and deliverance. The flood need not be global to be universal, so long as all human beings (ie. the only physical beings capable of committing sin due to their role as God's image-bearers) aside from Noah and his family perished. 

Additionally, we must also allow for the possibility that the total destruction language found in the flood account could be Ancient Near Eastern hyperbole. We find similar examples of total destruction language used throughout Scripture (particularly in the context of divine judgment) as well as in extra biblical sources. 

Again, the historicity of the flood and the authority of Scripture (Special Revelation) is not in doubt. The question is whether or not the flood should be interpreted as a global event given the ancient cultural and literary context of Genesis.

6. God providentially controls every moment of time and history, starting with the first creation and the fall, guiding it to redemption in Christ, and ushering everything toward the new creation. If the timeline of the universe is not the timeline of the Bible, then God’s providence is emptied of its meaning and purpose: it takes responsibility for billions of years of emptiness, silence, and death.

God's sovereignty and providence are not dependent on a young creation.  

As previously stated, God could have ended evil in the garden. But he didn't. He allowed history to play out as it has according to his will. If God allowed for billions of years to pass before the creation of man, who are we to challenge his methods? 

God is absolutely sovereign and in complete control of his creation–no matter how old or young the universe might be. His sovereignty is not dependent on the age of the universe. To argue such would be to lessen one's view of God by limiting him and his divine attributes in direct proportion to the age of his creation. This also creates a false dichotomy wherein one is forced to choose between belief in a sovereign, personal God or a deistic God based solely on the age of the universe; a young universe equals a powerful, sovereign God whereas an old universe equals an impotent God, who is all but absent from his creation. 

All that to say, belief in an old earth does not (or at least should not) change one's view of God's character, providence, or divine nature. Likewise, an old earth does not threaten the core doctrines of Christian theology or the gospel message. The theological foundation of the Genesis creation account is that God created the universe. The particulars of how and when he created remain open to discussion. The most important thing to remember is that it was God who created.

A Statue of the End Times Beast?

   

Is this statue, gifted to the United Nations by the Mexican government, an image of the End Times Beast from Daniel 7:4 and Revelation 13? There are some who certainly think so. However, this conclusion, while sincere, may be premature.

If one reads Daniel 7 and Revelation 13 in context, several things come to light. First and foremost being the fact that both Daniel 7 and Revelation 13 record visionary experiences that are highly symbolic in nature. The beasts described in both visions do not describe literal creatures. Rather, they are symbolic representations of human rulers and/or empires (Daniel 7:15-18).

Second, while this statue does share some similarities with the beast in Daniel 7:4 (i.e. a beast resembling a lion but with eagle’s wings) this beast is only the first of four beasts described in the vision and represents the Neo-Babylonian Empire of Nebuchadnezzar II (ca. 605-562 BC). The second beast (Daniel 7:5) represents the Medo-Persian/Achaemenid Empire (ca. 550-329 BC). The third, four-headed beast (Daniel 7:6) describes the Macedonian Empire of Alexander the Great, which was divided among four of Alexander's generals following his death in 323 BC. The fourth and final beast (Daniel 7:7-14) pertains to the Roman Empire and future Empire of the Antichrist. (We find additional prophecies describing the succession and conflicts between these ancient empires and kings in Daniel 2, 8, 11 and 12.)

“After this, while I was watching in the night visions, suddenly a fourth beast appeared, frightening and dreadful, and incredibly strong, with large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed, and it trampled with its feet whatever was left. It was different from all the beasts before it, and it had ten horns. While I was considering the horns, suddenly another horn, a little one, came up among them, and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. And suddenly in this horn there were eyes like the eyes of a human and a mouth that was speaking arrogantly.”

~Daniel 7:7-8 (CSB)

This leads to my third and final observation: Neither the fourth Beast of Daniel 7 nor the Beast of Revelation 13 (i.e. The Antichrist’s Empire) are described as winged beasts.

“And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads. On its horns were ten crowns, and on its heads were blasphemous names. The beast I saw was like a leopard, its feet were like a bear’s, and its mouth was like a lion’s mouth. The dragon gave the beast his power, his throne, and great authority. One of its heads appeared to be fatally wounded, but its fatal wound was healed.
“The whole earth was amazed and followed the beast. They worshiped the dragon because he gave authority to the beast. And they worshiped the beast, saying, ‘Who is like the beast? Who is able to wage war against it?’”

~Revelation 13:1-4 (CSB)

Keeping in mind the symbolic nature of these visions and their cultural context, the Antichrist’s Empire seems to be a composite of the empires that have come before it, and will have some elements in common. This is also alluded to in Daniel 7:11-14.

“I watched, then, because of the sound of the arrogant words the horn was speaking. As I continued watching, the beast was killed and its body destroyed and given over to the burning fire. As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was removed, but an extension of life was granted to them for a certain period of time.”

~Daniel 7:11-14 (CSB)

So then, is this statue an image of the Beast from biblical prophecy? In light of the textual and historical evidence, I'm inclined to believe that it is merely a statue and nothing more.

See Also:

The Prophecy of History

Is the Bible Perfect?

    Over the years God has given me the opportunity to discuss Christianity and the Bible with a number of individuals from a wide array of beliefs and religious backgrounds. In that time, one of the most common objections to Christianity that has been presented to me has been the issue of biblical inerrancy and the infallibility of God's Word. On more than one occasion, people have rejected the Bible as God's Word simply because it was written by human authors. "How," they often ask, "could the bible be the word of God when it was written by men and changed over time?"
    This objection is essentially based on the premise that in order for the Bible to be God's Word it would therefore need to be written by God Himself and would likewise need to be absolutely perfect, containing no errors, additions or variation between manuscripts.

    When positing this argument, the skeptic's case against the Bible appears solid. After all, the Bible is comprised of 66 books written by approximately 40 different authors over a span of about 1,400 years. This is no secret, and even most Christians will acknowledge this as a fact of history. What some Christians will not concede however, is that the manuscripts of the Bible do in fact contain "errors" and interpolations. 

    A popular slogan today is that the New Testament contains over 400,000 errors. However, what many skeptics don't realize is that this figure is based on a comparison between the entire collection of ancient New Testament manuscripts—totaling well over 5,000 documents in all. Of the 400,000 alleged errors within these documents, 99% of them are simply variations in spelling, word order or expansions of piety. (ie. The name "Jesus" expands to become "The Lord Jesus Christ" in later manuscripts.) The remaining 1% of variations contain some of the more serious interpolations. 
    For example, it is doubtful that the long and short endings of the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16: 8-20) and the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11) were part of the original gospels. The long and short endings of Mark seem to have been added in later centuries by scribes attempting to give Mark's gospel a less abrupt ending. That said, while it is unlikely that these divergent endings were part of the original document, none of the information presented by the additions is inherently false or even at odds with the rest of the Bible. In fact, the additional details found in the long and short endings of Mark can all be found in the other three gospels and the Book of Acts. This seems to suggest that these other New Testament works were used as sources by later scribes to created a more fluid summary at the end of Mark.

    The story of the woman caught in adultery only appears in about 12 ancient manuscripts and does not always appear in the same place within John's gospel, or even in John's gospel exclusively. However, the story does remain unaltered wherever it is found in the New Testament manuscripts. This has led many scholars to conclude that this event did in fact occur during the life and ministry of Jesus, but that it was not part of the original document. Rather, the evidence suggests that this story was an oral tradition within the Christian community that later scribes wanted to preserve. Since the Gospel of John concludes by stating that there were many other things Jesus said and taught that were not written down (John 20:30, 21:25) it makes sense why this particular story eventually found its way into the John's gospel even though it was not part of the original document.
 
    In any case, through carefully investigating the alleged errors in the Bible, one can clearly see that any interpolations were done out of a desire to preserve something of great importance to the early Christians, and were not clandestine attempts to change the meaning of the text. There was nothing nefarious or dishonest about it. Furthermore, every interpolation or disputed passage in the biblical manuscripts is clearly noted in modern translations, thus making it incredibly difficult for the skeptic to maintain their position that the "Church" is actively trying to deceive its members. (If you are trying to deceive people, you don't usually make it a point of habit to declare your deception to your audience!)
 
    So then, does the existence of interpolations, spelling mistakes and copyist errors prove that the Bible and Christianity are false? Hardly. Even skeptical scholars like Dr. Bart Erhman acknowledge that "essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament." 
    Therefore, the only so-called doctrine threatened by variations within the biblical manuscripts is the ridged, literalistic belief that the Bible is absolutely perfect. But is this belief biblically founded? Do Christians really believe that the Bible is absolutely perfect, or is it the skeptic that believes that the Bible was literally written by the hand of God and has been perfectly preserved, word-for-word from the day it was written until now?

    If one believes that the Bible is true, then one must also believe that the Bible changed over time. 1,000 years before Christ, the entire Bible consisted of no more than 11 books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua and Judges; possibly Ruth, Job, and First and Second Samuel. Since much of the Bible is descriptive (describing historical events as they happened) rather than prescriptive (prescribing a moral code of conduct for one to live by) we would expect the Bible to change over time as history unfolded. Likewise, the New Testament wasn't finished until about AD 70. Most of the New Testament is made up letters written to the Churches between AD 40 and AD 64. The earliest gospels were written after the Book of James and Paul's letter to the Galatians between AD 45 and AD 55, which means that there were Christians and Churches before there were gospels.
   When dealing with the issue of Bible translations the changes are even more apparent. For example, every word in the King James Bible written in italics marks a place where an English word was added to the text in order to make the translation easier to read. Likewise, punctuation and quotation marks, verse numbers and chapter headings are all latter additions, and are not present in the original text.
    Add to this the previously addressed issues of interpolations and manuscript variants and you will soon realize that it is logically impossible for a Christian to maintain the position that the Bible has not changed over time. Which is why so few Christians actually hold to this belief. Instead, we find that it is the skeptic who must assume that the Bible is perpetually unchanging in order to support their objections.

    If the Christian must admit that the Bible has changed over time as a matter of historic necessity, what impact does this have on the Christian claim that the Bible is the Word of God? 

    As it happens, there are only two instances in the entire Bible where God literally wrote something Himself. The first time we find God writing something down is in Exodus 24:12 when He instructed Moses to climb Mount Sinai and receive the Ten Commandments. The second time God physically wrote something is found in Daniel 5 when a hand appeared and wrote a pronouncement of judgment on the wall of King Belshazzar's palace. Aside from these two occasions—and their various reiterations—God did not physically write anything else. Naturally this raises the question of what Christians mean when they say that the Bible is the Word of God. Are they speaking literally or figuratively?

    Much of the confusion over the authorship of the Bible stems from a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Within Christianity, God is not a monad. (ie. One person existing as one being.) Instead, the Judeo-Christian God exists as three distinct, eternally co-equal persons with in a single divine being: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and God the Holy Spirit. Each person of the Godhead is unique and distinct from each other in person, yet one in nature. God the Father is fully God, but is not the Son or Holy Spirit. The Son is fully God but is not the Father or the Spirit. And the Holy Spirit is fully God, but is not the Father or the Son. It is this third person of the triune God—the Holy Spirit—that Christians believe is responsible for the authorship of the Bible.
   According to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 all Scripture was inspired by God. The word used in the Greek is theopneustos (θεόπνευστος) and literally means: "breathed out by God." Thus, it is the Christian belief that it was God's Spirit who stirred the hearts and minds of the Bible's human authors and inspired them to write down those truths that God wanted to convey in their own words. God did not "possess" them or force them to write the Bible like someone channeling a demonic spirit. Nor did God literally write the Bible himself. Instead God used regular people, shepherds and fishermen; kings and cup-bearers; priests, tent-makers and tax-collectors, each with their own personal experiences and writing styles to write down a single, unified message spanning over 1,400 years of history. In this sense the Christian view of the Bible is that it is a work of dual authorship written by the Holy Spirit working through human authors. Additionally, the Christian position on devine inspiration does not promote the view that our modern, printed Bibles were themselves inspired by the Holy Spirit. Rather, the Christian position states that the original autographs of the Scriptures were inspired. Therefore, it is the goal of Bible translators and textual critics to ensure that the Bibles in our possession today accurately reproduce the original autographs as closely as possible, so that the message of God's Word remains true to the original.
 
    So once again, it is the skeptic who must maintain a pretext in order to justify their objection. The skeptic must believe that God literally wrote the Bible with His own hand in order to justify their skepticism toward Christianity, when in fact Christianity makes no such claim.

    Finally, there is the issue of the inerrancy and infallibility of God's Word. If the Christian recognizes that the Bible has changed over time and was written by human authors inspired by the Holy Spirit, how can they believe that the Bible is without error or fault?
    Again, this objection is nothing more than a gross misrepresentation of what Christians believe. Christians do not view the physical matter of the Bible as holy. The paper and ink is just that: paper and ink. Likewise, the words themselves are also seen as fallible. (As previously noted, there are spelling mistakes in the ancient manuscripts.) What Christians mean when they say that the Word of God is inerrant or infallible is that the message of the Bible is completely true, without fault or error. There is a fundamental difference between information and the medium by which that information is stored and transmitted.
    For example, the information in the article you are currently reading came from my brain. It was transmitted through my body via electrical impulses in my muscles to the keyboard on my computer. The information was then converted into electrical signals again which were then interpreted by my writing software and converted into a digital display before being uploaded to the internet. If you have printed this article, then that digital medium has also been converted into a physical medium as paper and ink. Regardless of how you are reading this article, the information presented changed form many times before it reached your brain. Yet the message was faithfully preserved and understood by you when you read it.
    Similarly, there is more than one way to write down a particular thought or idea. I could say, "I am going to the store for some milk." Or I could say, "I'm out of milk. I guess I am going to the store today." Likewise I could say, "I am getting milk at the store today" or say simply, "I'm running to the store to get some milk." In each of these cases, the truth that I am going to go to the store to get milk today can be deduced even though the words themselves are different.
    This is a very simple explanation for what Christians mean when they say that the Bible is the Word of God. There is a difference between believing that a book is the inerrant and infallible Word of God and saying that the information contained within the book is the inerrant and infallible Word of God. The later claim being made by Christianity, while the former is the position of the skeptic.

    In conclusion, Christians do not believe that the Bible is perfect. At least, not in the same way that the skeptic does. The skeptic is required to believe that the Bible was literally written by God; that the paper and ink are themselves holy, perfect, without flaw or error, and that the biblical manuscripts have been perfectly preserved, word-for-word and letter-for-letter from the time they were written until now in order to object to the Christian's belief in the infallibility and inerrancy of God's Holy Word.
    The Christian however is free to acknowledge the fact that the Bible was written by human authors and that there are variations within the ancient manuscripts without abandoning their belief in the inerrancy and devine inspiration of the Scriptures. As a book, the Bible itself is finite and fallible. But the Word of God within its pages is eternal, true and without flaw.



 

.  See Also: 

Did the Council of Nicaea Invent Christianity and the Bible?

How the Jews did not invent God, and why He has always been Great

Additional Resources to Watch:

Is the Bible Inerrant or Infallible?  

Does the Bible have errors or contradictions?

Biggest Bible Contradictions

How Badly Was the New Testament Corrupted?

Is the King James Version of the Bible the most accurate translation?