A Little about the Authenticity of Scripture and a Few Guidelines for
it's Interpretation.
(Excerpts from a letter I had wriiten to a skeptic and also from an article
I wrote entitled Jesus Christ is not a Family Hating Communist.)
7+5 does not equal 12 because a man says it equals 12, but rather man understands
that 7+5=12. The fact that 7+5=12 is true regardless of whether any man knows
anything about this truth or not. Stated slightly differently: 7+5=12 is not
true because some man determined it to be so, but man, by his God given faculties
of reason, understands that 7+5=12.
The Apostle’s Creed confirms truth but does not determine it. Heretics,
who were teaching doctrines contrary to those found in Biblical Scripture,
had arisen. The Church got together in a council and forged a document concerning
what doctrines were taught in the Bible. The Apostles’ Creed was a formal
statement on basic Christian doctrine as taught in the Bible. It was a formal
statement about what the Church believes the Bible teaches. So a line was
drawn between the Church and the heretics.
So then why do I believe the Bible is God’s truth. Long story…
1. Jesus rose from the dead. Fantastic as this event was, the arguments
against this event just don’t add up. Read either The Case for Christ
by Lee Strobel for a summation of the arguments or Jesus’ Resurrection,
Fact or Figment: A Debate between William Lane Craig & Gerd Ludemann
which establishes that it completely reasonable to believe in the resurrection..
2. The New Testament documents are reliable. The New Testament
Documents: Are They Reliable? by F.F. Bruce.
3. Jesus confirmed that the Old Testament is Scripture. Since he rose
from the dead, I’ll believe him. God is the authority. Jesus was His ultimate
revelation to us.
4. Through Jewish sources, the Dead Sea scrolls and extra-biblical
sources the Old Testament is both ancient and reliable transmitted. A Survey
of Old Testament Introduction by Gleason L. Archer.
5. There were over 100 prophecies in the Old Testament predating Him
that were fulfilled when He came to earth, concerning His birth, life, death
and resurrection. The odds of this randomly happening are astronomical.
6. I could go on…
I am not skeptical about knowledge, but rather against claims of unsubstantiated
knowledge or of knowledge claims that go against common reason. The fact that
man rose from the dead is not contradictory but rather it is fantastic. If
I believe God could create the universe ex nihilo, He can raise the
dead. If it was claimed that He was both alive and dead at the same time and
in the same sense, then there is a contradiction. If God were to do a ‘miracle’
and create a circle square or make a rock so big He can’t pick it up, then
this would be absurd. Faith in contradiction is stupid.
Miracles, by definition are not common occurrences, else they wouldn’t be
called miracles. I have read David Hume’s argument against miracles but it’s
based on some a priori assumptions. His assumption is, that all that
is, is material. If he correct, then miracles are absurd. But I have yet to
hear a good argument that all is material, other than ‘I can’t see it, so
then it must not be.’
So then things are knowable. By the God given faculties of self-awareness,
senses, memory, logic and common reason we can discern truth. Some people
are better at certain subjects than others. We have doctors, lawyers, mechanics,
engineers, hairdressers, firemen, cops, chefs, soldiers, pilots, on so on.
You wouldn’t want a lawyer to do surgery on you, would you? He is an intelligent
educated man, so why not? If you sought legal advice wouldn’t you want to
talk to a lawyer? And most importantly, wouldn’t you want to know that he
was honest?
We live life making these kinds of objective judgments all the time. But
yet when we move into the realm of religion or philosophy, we seem to think
the same rules of reason don’t apply there. "Who cares if they contradict
themselves, they are so kind and charming." Like religion is about feeling
good or something, not about truth. Truth about who made us and why. So then
if I believe the Bible is God’s Word then how do I interpret it? First of
all, I would read it like any other book and take it for what it says. I would
not be looking for hidden or mystical meanings. To expound a little…
Proper biblical interpretation first requires an impartial translation of
the ancient language into the modern. This is critical so that a proper exegesis
can be made of the text so it is then possible for it to be understood the
way it was meant to be understood.
The next imperative is context. A text out of context is a pretext. For
example, there is a sentence in the Bible that says "There is no God." Does
the Bible therefore propose atheism? No, in context it says "The fool says
in his heart, ‘There is no God.’" A Mormon would claim that Psalm 82:1 presents
the idea of polytheism. But in the context of the rest of the psalm, it is
clear that the passage is referring to unjust judges. If you leave this principle
(of respecting context) for your own vices, it is clear that you can make
the Bible say anything you want it to.
As part of context, it is important to understand what is being said as
the audience at that time and culture would have understood what was being
said. In other words, how would a first century Jew understand what
Jesus said, as opposed to how (let’s say) a white, middle-class, 20th century
male would understand those particular words and phrases. Cultural understandings
change.
The recognition of what type of literature you are reading is also important.
Discernment must be practiced to deduce which passages should be understood
literally (law or history,) figuratively (parables and other various metaphors
and similes,) or generally (wisdom) Rendering all passages in the Bible literally
is something the Bible’s opponents love to do. To do so relegates the Bible
to an absurdity, which their itching ears want to hear. If this principle
were performed with other forms (primarily secular) of literature, it would
be laughable. But, to do this to the Bible is fair game for the supposedly
learned.
Next is a concept called sola scriptura. It basically states
that you should allow the Scripture to speak for itself inside the context
of what was originally meant, and that Scripture should define the Church
rather than the Church defining Scripture (i.e., Roman Catholicism.) It also
acknowledges that all Scripture (Genesis to Revelation) was ultimately authored
by the Holy Spirit and is therefore equally inspired. The entire canon testifies
to Christ and to His mission.
How did the Canon recognizing the 66 books comprising the Christian Bible
come to be, you ask? Well, those books were basically unstoppable based on
the principle found in John 8:47, "He who belongs to God hears what God says.
The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God" and in other
Scriptures. Whether or not you belong to God is your choice.
The doctrine of tota scriptura is basically the principle that all
of Scripture that is inspired must be included in the formulation of
a belief system. And that Scripture should be used to interpret Scripture
and not upon the opinion of a man nor upon any particular church’s doctrine.
What a particular man says may or may not be true, but the mere authority
of a man remains no proper test for truth.
Finally, it all ties together with reason. There is nothing in the Bible
that goes against reason that anyone has to accept on faith alone. That notion
is a secular lie put forth to discredit the idea that there is such a thing
as absolute ‘religious’ truth. If there were any actual, provable contradictions,
I would not be a Christian. There are concepts that go above human comprehension
but never against it. This is because there are different conditions of existence
between a necessary being and His contingent beings. God gave us logic and
reason, so in obedience we should use them. False interpretations are either
largely based upon categorical and contextual errors or they are intentional
deceptions for some evil purpose.