# Bible "scholars" do not believe in the Bible?



## JM (Jan 2, 2014)

Dan Wallace is a good, Bible believing Christian who points out that most who actually work with biblical mss deny the central tenets of the faith they are influencing. 

He wrote, "As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus’ death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead." (source) 

Is there truth to this statement?

Thanks.

jm


----------



## Ella Darby (Jan 2, 2014)

I took 2 bible classes at a secular college from an instructor who told me he was not a believer. I think I remember his words verbatim, "In properly examining history religious conviction is of no consequence to the truth."


----------



## JM (Jan 2, 2014)

I take it he wasn't a presuppositionalist! haha Neutrality is a myth.


----------



## Ella Darby (Jan 2, 2014)

Yes and yet he is entirely ok with believing in the myth of neutrality because it serves his own perception of academic credibility. The irony is beyond intense.


----------



## JM (Jan 3, 2014)

I listened to a recent debate with Dr. White and the fella who produced the _Tares Among Wheat_ documentary and Dr. White's arguments chip away at my faith in the sufficiency scriptures. The last year I've been hammered with RC arguments for church authority by a close friend but find the modern argument causes reasonable doubt in the sufficiently of scripture (considering we do not have the originals and rely on a magisterium of scholars to determine the canon for us). My buddy has read Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman, using them to attack the sufficiency of scripture.

Thanks,

jm


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 3, 2014)

JM said:


> I listened to a recent debate with Dr. White and the fella who produced the _Tares Among Wheat_ documentary and Dr. White's arguments chip away at my faith in the sufficiency scriptures. The last year I've been hammered with RC arguments for church authority by a close friend but find the modern argument causes reasonable doubt in the sufficiently of scripture (considering we do not have the originals and rely on a magisterium of scholars to determine the canon for us). My buddy has read Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman, using them to attack the sufficiency of scripture.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> jm


I've not listened to that particular debate, but I've listened to quite a bit of James White's available videos. Dr. Wallace's as well. AFAIC viewing the facts as to scribal variances in the extant manuscripts is not something that shakes my faith. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. I was, at one time, tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. Then one day I was re-reading the introduction of D Martyn Lloyd-Jones "Studies In the Sermon On The Mount." and read this :

"There is nothing more important in the Christian life than the way in which we approach the Bible and the way in which we read it. It is our textbook, it is our only source, it is our only authority. We know nothing about God and about the Christian life in a true sense apart from the Bible. We can draw various deductions from nature (and possibly from various mystical experiences) by which we can arrive at a belief in a supreme Creator. But I think it is agreed by most Christians and it has been traditional throughout the long history of the Church that we have no authority save this Book. We cannot rely solely upon subjective experiences because there are evil spirits as well as good spirits' there are counterfeit experiences. Here, in the Bible is our sole authority."

That paragraph, which I had read in the past, struck me like a thunderbolt. I attribute it to the Holy Spirit enlightening the eyes of my understanding to know that our Bible is the Word of Truth. There may be disagreements as to which translation, which family of manuscripts the translation originate from, but in the leading 'literal' translations doctrine is not effected and I leave the arguments to the scholars. I know whom I have believed.


----------



## JM (Jan 3, 2014)

Hey brother, let me be clear that my faith in Christ has not been affected, but my faith in the scriptures as sufficient is being tested. 

If what Wallace said is true many of the scholars involved in translation work are not even believers. These scholars can't even agree on what scripture is and use an eclectic text to translate from. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bengibor (Jan 3, 2014)

it's more than enough to see the New Oxford Annotated Bible editions of NRSV or some other liberal translation and you'll realize the extent of unbelief and apostasy of those Bible scholars that we so much really upon when it comes to their 'expertise' as to which mss we are to use (most notably Bruce Metzger) . Most of them believe that Genesis and Exodus stories are myth collected from various sources throughout centuries, Matthew was written by St. Anonymous, Paul didn't write pastoral epistles, Peter didn't right his epistles etc. Also, most of those scholars are of apostate National Council of Churches and that speaks for itself.


----------



## JM (Jan 5, 2014)

Maybe you are right... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

