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?

Did the Council of Nicaea Invent Christianity and the Bible?

   The Council of Nicaea has often been cited as the singular point in history where Christianity and the Bible as we know it first came into existence. According to the popular narrative, Christianity as we know it today was first created by Emperor Constantine I in the 4th Century AD. Before this time, there were many competing sects of Christianity each with it's own written and oral traditions concerning essential doctrines of the faith. In order to make his version of Christianity the official state religion of the Empire, Constantine organized a clandestine council with the intention of creating a unified holy text in support the new Imperial religion. Once the Bible had been officially created, the newly formed Roman Catholic Church destroyed all unauthorized Biblical manuscripts and other writings they deemed heretical before setting out on a bloody, government-sanctioned purge against anyone and anything who dared question the authority of the Emperor and the Church.

   This is the version of history many have accepted as fact. However, a closer examination of history tells quite a different tale.

   The First Council of Nicaea was convened in 325 AD following Emperor Constantine's alleged conversion to Christianity in 312 AD. Despite his conversion to the Christian faith, Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Instead, Constantine decreed that all religions within the Empire should be legalized in the charter known as the Edict of Milan (ca. 313 AD). Christianity was not the official state religion of the Empire until Emperor Theodosius I issued the Edict of Thesolonica in 380 AD. Christianity therefore, was not the only authorized religion within the Empire so much as it was one of many religions legalized by Emperor Constantine in 313 AD.
   Furthermore, there was no centralized Church government during the Council of Nicaea. Each individual community of Christians was governed by a local bishop. The papacy as we know it today did not exist in the 4th Century AD. The Pope was simply the bishop of the Church in Rome, one of over 1,800 bishops scattered all across the Roman Empire.

   Two years before the Edict of Milan, the Edict of Serdica officially ended the persecution of Christians under Emperor Diocletian (ca. 303 AD) by which many of the bishops present at the Council of Nicaea had endured imprisonment and torture for the sake of their religion. The fact that nearly all of the roughly 300 bishops in attendance at Nicaea lived through one of the most intense periods of Christian persecution in antiquity is crucial given the fact that the Council of Nicaea was convened, not to create Christianity—as those who were summoned to attend were already Christians—but rather to address a specific heresy springing up within Christianity. The men representing the orthodox Christian faith at Nicaea had not changed their stance on the core doctrines of the faith even in the face of imprisonment, torture and death. And they would show the same unity and steadfast resolve in their opposition to the Heresy of Arius.

   The nontrinitarian doctrines of Arianism—that Jesus is a lesser, created being separate from and subordinate to God the Father—were first taught by Paul of Samosata, the Bishop of Antioch (ca. 260-268 AD) and was later popularized by a man known as Arius of Alexandria at the turn of the 3rd and 4th Centuries AD. Arius' new teachings had bitterly divided the Church in Alexandria, forcing Arius to flee to Jerusalem where he continued to teach the Samosatene Doctrine, leading many to convert to Arianism. It was this divisive debate on the deity of Christ that prompted Constantine to convene the Council of Nicaea. It was his hope that the Christians would come to an agreement on the issue and that unity within the Church would be restored. However, instead of embracing Arianism or agreeing on a compromise, the Council of Nicaea all but unanimously recognized Arius' teachings as heretical. Of the nearly 300 bishops present at Nicaea, all but three—Arius and two of his followers—signed the Nicene Creed, officially codifying the orthodox belief in the deity of Christ.

   Following the Council's ruling, Arius was excommunicated and exiled from the Roman Empire. Later, Arius convinced Emperor Constantine to allow him back into the Empire so that he could force the orthodox Church to readmit him. However Arius died en route and was never readmitted into the orthodox Church. That said, one of his followers, Eusebius of Nicomedia, managed to sway Constantine's views in favor of Arianism. In a bid for political power, Eusebius of Nicomedia baptized Constantine before his death, thus legitimizing Arianism by means of Imperial endorsement. Over the next several decades, the Arians gained more and more political power, which they used to try to overthrow orthodox Christianity. Ultimately however, the Arians began fighting among themselves and lost much of their political influence, allowing the orthodoxy to reaffirm the Nicene Creed at the council of  Constantinople in 381 AD. Eventually Arianism died out completely, though the Samosatene Doctrine would later find a new voice in the 19th Century teachings of Joseph Smith Jr. and Charles Taze Russell.

   All that to say, the Council of Nicaea did not invent orthodox Christianity. Instead, we find the orthodox views were already well established by that time, as evidenced both by the unanimity of the Council's decision regarding Arius and his followers and multiple attestations within the cumulative writings of the Apostolic and Ante-Nicene Fathers. The Council of Nicaea, therefore, did not invent Christianity, they simply affirmed and codified what Christians had always believed regarding the deity of Christ.

   Furthermore, the Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the canon of scripture or the creation of the Bible. The Canon of Scripture was affirmed at the Council of Laodicea in 364 AD—nearly 40 years after Nicaea—and was reaffirmed by both the Council of Hippo in 393 AD and the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. Even then, the Council of Laodicea did not invent the Bible, nor did it decide which books were authorized by the Church. The Council of Laodicea merely affirmed the collections of books that had already been recognized as authoritative. (There is a difference between a work that is authorized by a ruling body and a work recognized as being authoritative on a particular topic.)

   The earliest Biblical Canon we have discovered to date is the Muratorian Canon (ca. 170-180 AD) though there are other lists dating from the Second Century onward. The appearance of Biblical Canons in the mid-to-late Second Century AD should come as no surprise given the sudden influx of spurious Gnostic writings at this time. (ie. The so-called Gospels of Thomas, Peter, and Judas, etc.) Faced with the sudden proliferation of alleged scriptures attributed to authors who had been dead for 100 years, it makes perfect sense that the early Christians would seek to safeguard themselves against false teachings by compiling lists of authoritative works previously recognized as having come from legitimate sources.

   While it is true that these early lists do disagree on the inclusion of some books (ie. Certain Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books in the Old Testament and the New Testament books of Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 3 John and Revelation, etc.) they all include the complete canon of Hebrew Scriptures (The Old Testament), the four Gospels, the book of Acts and Paul's Epistles, which make up the bulk of the New Testament writings. This continuity demonstrates a high degree of agreement among the early Churches in regards to the Canon of Scripture, as well as a steadfast commitment to preserving the Biblical text against later additions.

   Following the Council of Carthage, the next time the Canon of Scripture was addressed at a Church Council was at the Council of Trent (1545-1563 AD), almost 1,200 years later. This council canonized much of the Apocrypha as inspired Scripture in direct response to the growing Protestant Movement in order to garner proof-texts in support of Catholic teachings on purgatory, praying for the dead, and salvation by the paying of alms/purchase of indulgences. None of which are found in any of the books recognized as authoritative by the council of Laodicea.

   In closing, it is clear from a careful investigation of history that the Council of Nicaea did not invent Christianity or the Bible. Every bishop present at the Council, with the exception of Arius and his followers, were orthodox Christians who shared the same core belief in the deity of Christ, his death and Resurrection as modern Christians. These beliefs are well attested to within the New Testament manuscripts, the writings of the Apostolic and Ante-Nicene Fathers, and the writings of contemporary Roman and Jewish sources dating back to the First Century AD. Likewise the Bible was not a later invention of any Church council. Rather, the Church Councils in the 4th Century merely affirmed those writings which had already been recognized as authoritative works by the early Christians starting in the mid First Century AD.

See Also:

Who is Jesus?

Celibacy and the Bible

Body and Blood: Do Christians Practice Ritual Cannibalism?

Additional Resources to Watch:

The Truth about the Council of Nicaea

The Gospel of Thomas Examined

Biggest Bible Contradictions

Why Were Some Books Left out of the Bible?

How the Bible Was Changed

The REAL Story of the New Testament

The Truth About the "Banned Books" of the Bible

Why is it Evil to Rape and Murder?

    Over the last five years I have devoted much of my writings to answering the challenges of skeptics. Today however I am going to break with tradition and issue a challenge of my own. This challenge is not meant to single out or attack any one person, but is a legitimate question that I feel deserves serious consideration. That said, my challenge to the skeptic is this: Why is it morally wrong to rape and murder?

    According to many atheists and skeptics of Christianity, morality is simply an evolved social characteristic that allows our species to survive and reproduce. However, if the philosophies of Materialism, Naturalism, and Reductionisim are true, then out of all of the sins listed in the Bible and all of the evils committed by man, rape and murder should be the least concerning.
 
    Most animals mate forcibly in the wild. Some species, like ducks, even form "rape gangs" with multiple males forcibly mating with a single female at one time. If humans really are just highly evolved animals, then why is it morally wrong to rape in order to reproduce? If morality exists to ensure the survival of the species, and free will is merely an illusion of our "selfish genes," then it should be perfectly acceptable for a man to spread as much of his genetic material as possible by any means possible. Including rape.

    Another example found in nature is that of the African Lion. When a male lion takes over a pride, the first thing that he does after running off the previous male is kill all of the cubs to ensure that his own genes will be the only genes passed on to the next generation. If successful reproduction is the measure by which we judge what is good for a species, then what is to keep one man from killing another, murdering his children, and then forcibly impregnating the other man's wife in order to ensure the survival of his genes? If humans really are just "wet robots" at the mercy of DNA, then this sort of behavior should be perfectly acceptable.

    Additionally, if the survival of a species is the ultimate goal of life, then would it not be in the best interest of society to kill off all of the weaker individuals with less desirable genes in order for individuals within that society to gain an evolutionary edge over their competition? Is it really genocide for the more advanced forms of a species to kill off and replace the more primitive forms? Or is it simply natural selection in motion?

    My position on rape and murder is that both are morally evil. But unlike the skeptic, my position is built on the foundational presupposition that objective moral good exists and is found not in biology, but in God. God and His Word are the standard by which I judge what is good and what is evil. Since mankind is created in God's image (Genesis 1:27), it is morally evil to violate another person by raping them. Likewise, it is an act of moral evil to murder someone. This is why both rape and murder carried the death penalty in the Old Testament. (Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17, Deuteronomy 22:25-27) Furthermore, since humans are spiritual creatures made in God's image, we are born with an innate sense of morality regardless of religious background, culture or ethnicity. (Romans 2:14-15)

    Now, I hope it is clear to the reader that I am not claiming that all skeptics are immoral simply because they are skeptical of religion. There are plenty of moral people in the world who deny the existence of God. However I do not believe that the existence of objective morality can be explained in purely naturalistic terms. Individuals may be moral people while maintaining the belief that God does not exist. But they cannot justify their inborn sense of morality without forcing theistic principles into their otherwise naturalistic worldview.

    That being said, the burden of proof now lies with the skeptic. If good and evil don't really exist, and morality really is just an evolved social trait that can be reduced down to simple bio-chemistry, then why should anyone view rape and murder as being morally evil?
 

See Also:

Did God Create Evil?

The Nature of Truth

Sex Slavery and the Bible

Creation vs. Evolution: Philosophy or Fact?

Did God Create Evil?

    If God created everything, does that mean that God also created evil?

    This is a common argument that skeptics of the Bible and Christianity will make to defend their position that God does not exist. Some of the more biblically knowledgeable skeptics are also quick to point out Isaiah 45:7 as a case in point of both God's lack of moral character and a glaring contradiction in the Bible and Christian theology.

 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."
~ Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV) [Emphasis Added]
 
    How can God be morally good yet also be responsible for creating evil? Is this an example of a biblical contradiction as the skeptic claims?
 
    As so often happens with alleged Bible contradictions, the confusion stems from a linguistic misunderstanding. In this case, it is a misunderstanding of the word evil.
    In Isaiah 45:7, the word translated as evil in English is the Hebrew word Ra` (רָ֑ע). The most common usage of Ra` is in regards to moral evil. However, as with English, this is not the only usage of the word. Ra` can also mean calamity, distress, trouble or even that something is simply bad. For example, in the New Living Translation of Lamentations 38-39 Ra` is translated as calamity while in Job 2:10 Ra` is used in reference to bad times or times of trouble and hardship. However, the King James translation of both of these verses  translates Ra` as evil. This is because when the King James Bible was translated in 1611 the word evil could also mean calamity, disaster, or trouble, not just moral evil. However in modern English, evil refers almost exclusively to moral evil. 
    Understanding this, we have additional evidence within the text of Isaiah 45:7 to indicate that the broader meaning of Ra` is being used. In Isaiah 45:1-6 God is declaring himself to be the only true God. Verses 5-7 use contrasting imagery to showcase God's power and majesty. God alone created light and darkness. God alone makes peace. But what is the contrast to peace? Moral evil? No. Peace and security are contrasted by war and calamity. Not moral evil. This is why most modern English translations of the Bible substitute evil—which could mean calamity or disaster in 1611—with either calamity or disaster. Or, in the case of the New Living Translation, bad times.

  "I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, the Lord, am the one who does these things."
~ Isaiah 45:7 New Living Translation (NLT) [Emphasis Added]

    So then, does Isaiah 45:7 teach that God creates moral evil? Not in the least. In fact, contrary to the arguments of the skeptic, the existence of moral evil in the world is not evidence against God's existence, rather it is evidence for God's existence.
    Without an objective standard of morality, no one would be able to distinguish between that which is morally good and that which is morally evil. Good and evil would be completely subjective. Not only that, without being able to appeal to a higher moral standard, law and justice both become arbitrary. Whatever is morally acceptable to one person becomes that person's standard of good. One person may believe it is perfectly acceptable to beat and rob another. But without objective morality, no one can say for certain that such actions are morally wrong. Therefore, there cannot be moral evil without the existence of a transcendent standard of moral good that applies to all people for all time. The view posited by Christianity is that God is that standard. Since God is the standard by which we judge what is good, anything that is contrary to God's character is morally evil. This evil is what the Bible calls sin.  
    Because God is good, he cannot allow evil in any form to go unpunished. And since God's holiness is the standard of what is good, God's justice applies to everyone. God is the ultimate morally objective judge. This is why God sent Jesus to die for our sins. As the man Jesus Christ, God took upon Himself the judgment for the sins of all mankind so that through Jesus He could offer forgiveness and mercy to those who would be willing to turn from their sins and place their trust in Him. (Romans 5:6-11)

   The existence of moral evil in the world and the fact that such evil is recognizable does not definitively prove that God exists. It is simply one more piece of evidence that points to God. And while God does not create moral evil, it is logically impossible for one to posit that genuine moral evil exists without also admitting the existence of objective moral good.






   

The Issue of Faith: Is Faith Irrational?

    When dealing with the issue of faith, it is important to understand the meaning of faith as it applies to the biblical usage of the word. Today, the word faith generally caries with it a more or less negative connotation. A person is said to have faith when they believe in something in spite of evidence to the contrary. In this modern usage, having faith means that a person is continuing to blindly believe something is true even though there is no proof. (Merrium-Webster Dictionary)  This however is a very narrow definition of faith in the English langue and is not the biblical definition of faith at all. 

    The Greek word translated as faith in English versions of the New Testament is Pistis (πίστις), which is better translated as trust and stems from the Greek word Peithô (πείθω) which means to be persuaded or convinced. Therefore, in the biblical sense, a person has faith, not out of a misguided belief in spite of the evidence, but rather is convinced and persuaded to have confidence in their belief as a result of evidence. This idea of confident trust in God and His faithfulness is what the biblical authors were trying to convey to their original audience. It is only recently that faith has come to mean something less.

    Understanding this subtle difference between having blind faith and a confident trust allows us to view faith-heavy passages like Hebrews 11 in an entirely different light. By simply replacing the word faith with trust the true meaning and intent of these passages becomes apparent. The great men of faith recorded in Hebrews 11 were not considered righteous because of a misguided superstition in an unseen reality for which there was no proof. They were counted as righteous because they believed God and trusted in Him and His faithfulness to keep His word.

    In concision biblical faith and intellectual reason are not opposed to one another. On the contrary: they are intertwined! It is not irrational to have faith in God when He has given us proof of his faithfulness. Nor is it anti-intellectual to believe that something is true in light of affirming evidence. 

See Also:

Saved by Faith or by Works?

The Nature of Truth

    Is it possible for one to be completely objective in their search for truth? The simple answer is: No. True objectivity involves the ability to think for oneself, completely independent of others. Since we are relational creatures by design, it is impossible for an individual to progress through life without being influenced by another. From the moment we are born we are in contact with others, we crave contact with others and require contact with others in order to thrive. It is this contact that shapes us through infancy and childhood and continues to mold us as individuals throughout our lives.
    We continue to be influenced by others beyond our formative years, whether consciously or subconsciously, by the things we read, hear, and see. Every word, written or heard, influences us in our interpretation and perception of reality. To be truly independent of the influence of others we must avoid all human contact from birth. Something that is not only impossible, but also detrimental to normal psychological and physical development.
    Even those who seek originality cannot escape this fact. In the quest for original thought, the one who seeks originality must do so by avoiding those thoughts, ideas and theories which have already been explored so as not to repeat them.One cannot create a new thought or present a new theory or idea without first understanding the thoughts and ideas of others in order to avoid presenting an idea that has already been presented. Therefore the quest for originality is also directly influenced by the ideas and thoughts of others, if only for the sake of omission!

    Since our interpretation of reality has been unavoidably influenced by the thoughts and opinions of others, we are as a result biased in both our opinions and our quest for truth. Realizing this, one must also realize that the quest for truth itself is in reality a quest to prove which bias is true.
    This is of course assuming that their is absolute truth. If truth is subjective, then it is fluid and can be changed depending on the bias of the observer. The result of subjective truth is a perception of reality in which something that is true to the bias of one individual is not necessarily true to the bias of another.
    In this scenario, if a particular aspect of truth is uncomfortable, or challenges the bias of the observer, then the observer simply has to ignore that particular aspect of truth. This is the only instance when it is possible for one to be objective in their search for truth because one can simply change the truth in order to fit one's bias! Logic however dictates that nothing can be both equally true and equally false at the same time. Thus two opposing biases cannot both be true.
    Furthermore, the belief in subjective truth is itself a statement of absolute truth. It cannot be absolutely true that there is no absolute truth if there is no absolute truth! To believe that nothing is absolutely true is to adhere to the belief in the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth. Therefore, the belief in subjective truth proves that truth is, by it's very nature, absolute. It is not fluid. It is not subjective. It is absolute and unyielding. To believe otherwise is to live within a world of self delusion governed by logical fallacy and denial.

    If truth is absolute and each observer is biased, how then can anyone be objective? The only way to be completely unbiased in one's evaluation of truth is if one is omniscient. In order to know truth, one must know the difference between false bias and the truth without being influenced by the bias of others. The only way to accurately discern between bias and truth free of the influence of others is if one is intimately antiquated with absolute truth and knows the answer and ultimate outcome of every idea conceived by man, past present and future.
    In order to know every idea conceived by man past, present and future, one must also exist outside of time, thus one would have to be omnipotent, being master of both time and space. And if one were the master of time and space, then one would of course be unhindered by the laws of the natural universe and would therefore be omnipresent: existing everywhere in the universe and beyond simultaneously.

    If one were omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, then one would be able to know truth, for such a being would be the very author of truth itself.

    How then can we, who are unashamedly biased in our presuppositions know truth? By drawing close to the One who is the author of truth: Jesus Christ. 

    Jesus is the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent author of truth. As such, He is the only one who can fully know truth and be completely objective in his interpretation of truth. Likewise, since Jesus is the author of truth, knowing the ultimate outcome of every human thought past, present and future, He is completely just and fair in His understanding, evaluation and judgment over all creation. He is Himself the truth.  It is impossible for truth to exist without God. And it is impossible for us to know truth apart from Christ.

    "Jesus told him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me."  ~John 14:6 New Living Translation (NLT)

Two Years and Counting

I can hardly believe it has been nearly two years since I posted my first article here on The Evidence is Plain. Since then God has put it on my heart to address dozens of topics, and has used my gifts--my love of writing, history, and science--to spread His Truth around the world.

That being said, moving into 2016, I am reminded just how little I know. God is so magnificent; His plain so wonderful, that even the wisest among us can only just begin to comprehend Him.
I have done my best to share the truth of Jesus Christ with as many people as I can. But I admit that I don't know all of the answers. Some day everything will be revealed (1 Corinthians 13:12) but until that day, it is my hope and prayer that God will continue to give me wisdom and the words to write so that the truth will be heard and that every lie, misconception, and falsehood would be refuted.

If you happen to be a skeptic, or if you are merely curious to see what God has been putting on my heart of the past two years, then I encourage you to browse the blog archive. I have written to address over 80 topics and misconceptions about Christianity, so it is entirely possible that you will find the answers that you're looking for. If after housing the archive you still have a question you would like answered, please leave a comment below, and I will do my best to reply--either by comment or article.

My the peace of the Lord be with you.

Money and the Church

One of the biggest misconceptions about Christianity today is that the church, or rather "organized religion", is a corporate scam devised by cunning individuals hell-bent on swindling weak-minded people out of their hard-earned income. Now, while this is certainly true of some individuals masquerading as Christians and pastors, I want to make it very clear that this is not the way that the majority of churches operate. And I hope that many of you will agree with me when I say that the actions of a handful of individuals is not enough to stereotype millions of people all over the world. Furthermore, true Christianity is not an "organized religion"; it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. As I stated in my previous article "The Problem with Religion," religion can't save anyone and only succeeds in creating a culture of self-righteousness and hypocrisy among devotees.  

That being said, I want to point out that the Bible is very clear that people who preach just for money have no place in the Kingdom of God, and are in fact considered to be "false teachers" and/or "wolves in sheep's clothing" (Matthew 7:15-20)

"But there were also false prophets in Israel, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will cleverly teach destructive heresies and even deny the Master who bought them. In this way, they will bring sudden destruction on themselves. Many will follow their evil teaching and shameful immorality. And because of these teachers, the way of truth will be slandered. In their greed they will make up clever lies to get hold of your money. But God condemned them long ago, and their destruction will not be delayed."

~ 2 Peter 2:1-3 New Living Translation (NLT) [Emphasis Mine]

"Teach these things, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. Some people may contradict our teaching, but these are the wholesome teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. These teachings promote a godly life. Anyone who teaches something different is arrogant and lacks understanding. Such a person has an unhealthy desire to quibble over the meaning of words. This stirs up arguments ending in jealousy, division, slander, and evil suspicions. These people always cause trouble. Their minds are corrupt, and they have turned their backs on the truth. To them, a show of godliness is just a way to become wealthy."

~ 1 Timothy 6:2b-5 New Living Translation (NLT) [Emphasis Mine]

A prime example of the "destructive heresies" mentioned in 2 Peter is that of the "Health and Wealth Gospel"—the idea that if you do more for God, God will bless you more as a result. Or, as is often the case, if you give more money to a particular church, cause, or preacher, God will bless you and give you a long life, good health, and more money than what you initially gave. The error in all of this is that it implies that those people who are not being blessed as much as others are simply not doing enough to merit God's favor, and must therefore work harder if they wish to experience all the good things God wants to give them. This of course is all based on our own perception of reality, which—as we all know—can be far from accurate. In extreme cases this warped perception can lead to a spiritual hierarchy, and/or an elitist attitude among Christians, resulting in a sort of "spiritual competition," with individuals scrambling over each other to see which person can gain more of God's favor. 

In short, this kind of works-based gospel is contrary to God's Word, and is therefore a false teaching. God will do as He pleases. He has no favorites, and His favor cannot be bought. (Daniel 4:35, Psalm 115:3, 135:6, Romans 2:11, Titus 3:5, Ephesians 2:8-9) 

However, God does say in Malachi 3:10 to test Him with your giving in regards to tithes. But something that is often overlooked is the cultural context of this passage. If you read the rest of Malachi you will see that the reason God was commanding the people to offer their full tithe was because the Nation of Israel had turned their backs on Him, and had stopped offering the sacrifices required by the Law of Moses. Not only were the people sinning by failing to obey God's commandments, they were also neglecting the Levitical Priests—members of the one tribe in all of Israel who depended on the tithes of the people just to put food on the table. (Deuteronomy 18:1-2) 

This means that in Malachi 3:10 God was looking out for the daily needs of the people who, under the Old Testament Law, served as mediators between Israel and Himself. (The Old Testament system of offering animal sacrifices for the sins of the people was later nullified with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who fulfilled the requirements of the Law and became our High Priest; thus making both the priesthood and our need for human mediators obsolete. (Hebrews 8-10) 

On that note, I want to address the issue of tithing. Some people—mostly those who are not Christians themselves—see tithing as the way in which organized religion takes advantage of its followers. However, if you have read the passages above, then you already know that the Bible teaches something entirely different, and actually condemns those who would use God's Word in order to manipulate people for personal gain. 

That being said, the Bible does say that pastors should be paid for their work:

"Elders who do their work well should be respected and paid well, especially those who work hard at both preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, 'You must not muzzle an ox to keep it from eating as it treads out the grain.' And in another place, 'Those who work deserve their pay!'”

~1 Timothy 5:17-18 New Living Translation (NLT)

Now some of you may be thinking: "Aha! There it is! The smoking gun; indisputable proof that pastors are stealing money from their congregations!"

However, I would present to you one vital piece of evidence that many people tend to overlook: most pastors do not make very much money. Furthermore, some pastors—especially youth and assistant pastors—rely on other jobs in order to support their families. This dependency on what many would deem "secular work" goes all the way back to the beginning of Christianity and the church itself. The Apostles worked to support themselves, despite receiving tithes and offerings from the early church. Even the Apostle Paul—the man who wrote most of the New Testament and planted churches all over the Roman Empire—earned a living as a tentmaker. (Acts 18:3, 2 Thessalonians 3:8) So to argue that pastors are swindling people is a rather weak stance to take on the subject in light of the obvious facts. 

That being said, I feel that many people fail to realize the amount of stress pastors are under. They deal with addiction counseling, sickness, death, and all manor of questions and criticism every single day; not to mention the amount of study and preparation they put into their weekly sermons—some pastors even do multiple sermons in one week! So I asked you: Do you honestly think that these people should not be paid for the work that they do? Therapists get paid. Scholars and history professors get paid. So why shouldn't pastors? 

Contrary to what many people believe, churches do have other expenses besides paying their pastors' salaries. For example: When I give my tithe to my church, that money goes to paying my pastor, the assistant pastors, the secretaries in the office, and the utility bills for the building. In addition to this, some of my money also goes into a missions fund for the missionary families my church supports overseas, as well as an account for funding the youth group's short-term missions trips to Mexico and the surround communities, where they build houses, feed the homeless, and help at local schools. Furthermore, some of my money is also put into a disaster relief fund that my church set up to help families within the church when they encounter unexpected financial hardships—i.e. the loss of a job, or home; or an unplanned medical expense.  

Now remember, the word "tithe" literally means "one tenth." So when I say that my tithe pays for all of these expenses, charities, and funds, I'm talking about one dime out of every dollar that I make. That means that I get to keep $90 out of every $100 that I take home. Does that sound like I'm being swindled out of my hard-earned cash? Am I inadvertently paying for my pastor's tri-yearly trip to the Bahamas with my voluntary giving? Or maybe I bought him a $10,000,000 dollar beach-house in Hawaii, and a private jet to fly him there every week?

I'm joking of course. But hopefully you'll realize just how ridiculous these accusations sound when you really stop to think about it.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there aren't people out there who manipulate God's Word in order to make themselves wealthy. But most Christians are not scoundrels. Pastors aren't running out to their cars with a bag of money in both hands after every church service. But con artists do exist, and you don't have to look very far to find a "wolf in sheep's clothing."

That being said, we as Christians need to be careful. If a person is teaching a message contrary to God's Word; or if they demand payment; or if they tell you that you need to buy pamphlets, books, or other "essential study materials" from them in order to "truly understand God's Word," have nothing to do with them. They are a false teacher, and they are using God's Word to manipulate people. Giving a tithe or donating money to help rebuild a home destroyed by a fire is one thing; buying and selling a person's merchandise is another.

In short, Christianity isn’t about the money; it’s about Jesus Christ. And the church isn’t an organization. Nor is it a building. The church is every individual who has heard the truth about Jesus Christ and believed. Rich or poor, slave or free, male or female; we are all the church. (1 Corinthians 12:12-27) So when you accuse the "church" of swindling people out of their money, you're really accusing us as individuals. But honestly, most of us could care less about the paper in your wallet. We have something that is worth far, far more; something that can never be taken away or destroyed: Our hope in Jesus Christ, who is our eternal treasure in Heaven. (Matthew 6:19-21) 

The Problem with Religion

“I believe in God, just not organized religion ... ”

“Religious people are just so hypocritical...”

“I'm happy that you've found sometihng that works for you, but religion just ins't my thing... ”

If these statements or others like them describe you, then I have some great news that may come as a shock to many: Jesus hates religion, too!

If you read any of the gospel accounts, you'll find that some of the harshest things Jesus ever said were to religious people. His words in Matthew 23 are especially scathing: 

“Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples,‘The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the law of Moses. So practice and obey whatever they tell you, but don’t follow their example. For they don’t practice what they teach. They crush people with unbearable religious demands and never lift a finger to ease the burden.

“‘Everything they do is for show. On their arms they wear extra wide prayer boxes with Scripture verses inside, and they wear robes with extra long tassels. And they love to sit at the head table at banquets and in the seats of honor in the synagogues. They love to receive respectful greetings as they walk in the marketplaces, and to be called ‘Rabbi.’

“‘Don’t let anyone call you ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one teacher, and all of you are equal as brothers and sisters. And don’t address anyone here on earth as ‘Father,’ for only God in heaven is your spiritual Father. And don’t let anyone call you ‘Teacher,’ for you have only one teacher, the Messiah. The greatest among you must be a servant. But those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

“‘What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you shut the door of the Kingdom of Heaven in people’s faces. You won’t go in yourselves, and you don’t let others enter either.

“‘What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you cross land and sea to make one convert, and then you turn that person into twice the child of hell you yourselves are!

“‘Blind guides! What sorrow awaits you! For you say that it means nothing to swear ‘by God’s Temple,’ but that it is binding to swear ‘by the gold in the Temple.’ Blind fools! Which is more important—the gold or the Temple that makes the gold sacred? And you say that to swear ‘by the altar’ is not binding, but to swear ‘by the gifts on the altar’ is binding. How blind! For which is more important—the gift on the altar or the altar that makes the gift sacred? When you swear ‘by the altar,’ you are swearing by it and by everything on it. And when you swear ‘by the Temple,’ you are swearing by it and by God, who lives in it. And when you swear ‘by heaven,’ you are swearing by the throne of God and by God, who sits on the throne.

“‘What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are careful to tithe even the tiniest income from your herb gardens, but you ignore the more important aspects of the law—justice, mercy, and faith. You should tithe, yes, but do not neglect the more important things. Blind guides! You strain your water so you won’t accidentally swallow a gnat, but you swallow a camel!

“‘What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are so careful to clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside you are filthy—full of greed and self-indulgence! You blind Pharisee! First wash the inside of the cup and the dish, and then the outside will become clean, too.

“‘What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs—beautiful on the outside but filled on the inside with dead people’s bones and all sorts of impurity. Outwardly you look like righteous people, but inwardly your hearts are filled with hypocrisy and lawlessness.

“‘What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you build tombs for the prophets your ancestors killed, and you decorate the monuments of the godly people your ancestors destroyed. Then you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would never have joined them in killing the prophets.’

“‘But in saying that, you testify against yourselves that you are indeed the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Go ahead and finish what your ancestors started. Snakes! Sons of vipers! How will you escape the judgment of hell?

“‘Therefore, I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers of religious law. But you will kill some by crucifixion, and you will flog others with whips in your synagogues, chasing them from city to city. As a result, you will be held responsible for the murder of all godly people of all time—from the murder of righteous Abel to the murder of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you killed in the Temple between the sanctuary and the altar. I tell you the truth, this judgment will fall on this very generation.’”

~ Matthew 23:1-36 New Living Translation (NLT)

By human standard, these were the "righteous" people Jesus was talking to. They were extremely moral, holy, religious individuals—the priests, teachers, and political leaders of Jewish society. Yet Jesus was not impressed. He saw right through their smoke and mirrors, and saw that their hearts were far from God. They acted the part, true. But they were counting on their pious self-denial and adherence to religious law for salvation, instead of trusting in God. Jesus saw their hypocrisy for what it was and called them out on it. And as a result, they began plotting to kill him. (Matthew 12:14, 26:1-5) 

That's the problem with religion: It can't save anyone. 

As I said in my previous article: "Religion or Relationship: What Must I do to be Saved?" religion is a man-made attempt to regain our lost relationship with God. We bind ourselves up with rules and regulations, hoping that God will accept us; even though we ultimately end up trapped in a net of our own design, condemned by the laws we try to uphold. (Romans 4:14-15) 

This is not what God wants from us. 

God doesn't want religion; He wants to have a personal relationship with each and every one of us. He created us. We are precious to Him. Every single human being is a one-of-a-kind masterpiece, hand-crafted by God Himself. (Ephesians 2:10) There will only be one you—ever. And God desperately wants you to know Him as well as He knows you. Not only that, He wants to call you His friend. 

Religion can't do that. You can’t become someone’s close friend if you spend every waking hour trying to patronize them. In fact, most people would probably start to avoid you if you did that!
Likewise, God doesn't want people to try to earn His favor, wasting their lives by thinking that if they're good enough He will somehow love them more. (Romans 2:11, Ephesians 2:8-9) 
That is why God sent Jesus to die for us; to restore the relationship that we destroyed, and to free us from the burden of empty religion. We don't need to earn God's favor—He was already willing to die for us. All we have to do is accept His forgiveness and the gift of life and mercy that He offers to us through Jesus Christ. (John 3:16-21)

We don't need religion—religion breeds self-righteousness and hypocrisy. What we do need is a relationship with Jesus—our mediator—the one who died once to save us all from sin and death, and now lives to restore our friendship with God. 

“Therefore, since we have been made right in God’s sight by faith, we have peace with God because of what Jesus Christ our Lord has done for us. Because of our faith, Christ has brought us into this place of undeserved privilege where we now stand, and we confidently and joyfully look forward to sharing God’s glory.

“We can rejoice, too, when we run into problems and trials, for we know that they help us develop endurance. And endurance develops strength of character, and character strengthens our confident hope of salvation. And this hope will not lead to disappointment. For we know how dearly God loves us, because he has given us the Holy Spirit to fill our hearts with his love.

“When we were utterly helpless, Christ came at just the right time and died for us sinners. Now, most people would not be willing to die for an upright person, though someone might perhaps be willing to die for a person who is especially good. But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners. And since we have been made right in God’s sight by the blood of Christ, he will certainly save us from God’s condemnation. For since our friendship with God was restored by the death of his Son while we were still his enemies, we will certainly be saved through the life of his Son. So now we can rejoice in our wonderful new relationship with God because our Lord Jesus Christ has made us friends of God.”

~Romans 5:1-11New Living Translation (NLT)