Attack on the Bible!

[Romans922]

How would you respond to this:

"The way the Bible has changed: The Bible started as oral tradition, in which stories can get embelsihed over time. The documents now available to scholars do not date to the beginning of time. The original written documents do not even exist. The manuscripts available now are copies. Who knows how many times they were copied. Due to the Babylonian Exile quite a few scrolls from the Temple were destroyed. The remnant that came back (Ezra, first and foremost) did not have all the scrolls from the Temple. But they did have what people remembered plus the remaining scrolls that had been saved. That is mostly pertaining to the Old Testament. Now the New Testament has had a break with the Dead Sea Scrolls. But even then, it was not written down during Jesus' life on earth, but after he ascended. Thus for the fist couple of decades it was also oral tradition. Then there are all the books that the Church decided to throw out of the canon. And even today the Catholic and Protestant Bibles do not have all of the same books in them."

 

[Scott Bushey]

How would you respond to this:

"The way the Bible has changed: The Bible started as oral tradition, in which stories can get embelsihed over time. The documents now available to scholars do not date to the beginning of time. The original written documents do not even exist. The manuscripts available now are copies. Who knows how many times they were copied. Due to the Babylonian Exile quite a few scrolls from the Temple were destroyed. The remnant that came back (Ezra, first and foremost) did not have all the scrolls from the Temple. But they did have what people remembered plus the remaining scrolls that had been saved. That is mostly pertaining to the Old Testament. Now the New Testament has had a break with the Dead Sea Scrolls. But even then, it was not written down during Jesus' life on earth, but after he ascended. Thus for the fist couple of decades it was also oral tradition. Then there are all the books that the Church decided to throw out of the canon. And even today the Catholic and Protestant Bibles do not have all of the same books in them."

1 Thessalonians 2:13 13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

1 Peter 1:23 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The Gospel message is consistent. Duplication is irrelevant when you think spiritually. The above is an attack on Gods attributes. Who ever wrote such drivel is obviously unregenerate.

 

[Bandguy]

How would you respond to this:

"The way the Bible has changed: The Bible started as oral tradition, in which stories can get embelsihed over time. The documents now available to scholars do not date to the beginning of time. The original written documents do not even exist. The manuscripts available now are copies. Who knows how many times they were copied. Due to the Babylonian Exile quite a few scrolls from the Temple were destroyed. The remnant that came back (Ezra, first and foremost) did not have all the scrolls from the Temple. But they did have what people remembered plus the remaining scrolls that had been saved. That is mostly pertaining to the Old Testament. Now the New Testament has had a break with the Dead Sea Scrolls. But even then, it was not written down during Jesus' life on earth, but after he ascended. Thus for the fist couple of decades it was also oral tradition. Then there are all the books that the Church decided to throw out of the canon. And even today the Catholic and Protestant Bibles do not have all of the same books in them."

Here is how I respond:

Isn't it a miracle how God inspired and preserved his Word? You do believe that God is bigger than all those barriers you mentioned above, right?

 

[Romans922]

Cool.

 

[Archlute]

How would you respond to this:

"The way the Bible has changed: The Bible started as oral tradition, in which stories can get embellished over time. The documents now available to scholars do not date to the beginning of time. The original written documents do not even exist. The manuscripts available now are copies. Who knows how many times they were copied. Due to the Babylonian Exile quite a few scrolls from the Temple were destroyed. The remnant that came back (Ezra, first and foremost) did not have all the scrolls from the Temple. But they did have what people remembered plus the remaining scrolls that had been saved. That is mostly pertaining to the Old Testament. Now the New Testament has had a break with the Dead Sea Scrolls. But even then, it was not written down during Jesus' life on earth, but after he ascended. Thus for the fist couple of decades it was also oral tradition. Then there are all the books that the Church decided to throw out of the canon. And even today the Catholic and Protestant Bibles do not have all of the same books in them."

Begin by questioning his presuppositions and erroneous assertions.

For starters, ask him where he got the idea of Scripture as oral tradition. The view he has presented comes out of the evolutionary model of a "history of religions" where tales were passed from generation to generation, being embellished to suite the times and situations faced by the peoples involved. In this view there is no divine word, but mere human religious writ. Point out that Scripture itself gives no room for a long period of oral transmission, but rather that these words were given directly to Moses and the prophets. All of these books record direct transaction between God and his messengers with the words "The Lord spoke to Moses, saying..." or "Thus says the Lord.." etc. To deny this, one has to hold an a priori position of unbelief in the truthfulness of Scripture's self attestation.

Second, point out that none of the books of the Bible claim to originate from the beginning of time. The earliest writings come from the hand of Moses in the Pentateuch; these record the origins of the world by the mouth of God, but they never claim to date from that time.

Discuss the issue of the many copies of manuscripts that we have of the Scriptures, then turn the tables on him and point out the fact that these thousands of mss. actually agree on 99% of the words of Scripture, and the variants that do exist usually are in overwhelming support of a single reading. This unity in the face of so many copies actually gives confidence in the authenticity of the message being preserved rather than distorted, and many of the variants are merely clarifications in style/grammatical usage by copyists from later centuries who were making explicit something in the Greek that was otherwise implicit and would be overlooked by later generations of Greek readers (such as the use of articles in certain situations, etc.). These changes in the copies still did not change the meaning of the text.

Ask where he gets his information about so many scrolls being destroyed that the Jews did not have a complete copy of the canon, and had to recopy much from memory. I don't see that in Scripture or history, maybe it's there, somewhere, but make sure that he can point out the facts and sources.

Concerning the NT, ask about his view of inspiration (of course he probably doesn't have one), and ask why it would be so difficult for the Gospel's to be written after Christ's ascension when He specified that He was sending His Holy Spirit to aid them in their work after He had gone from them. Did all of the material have to be oral tradition, or is it most likely that the apostles/disciples wrote down their thoughts by divine inspiration/recollection as well? Even so, is the inclusion of oral material under the direction of the Spirit somehow less inspired, or truthful, than direct revelation? John and Luke both seem to imply that eyewitness accounts other than their own were trustworthy of inclusion.

Discuss canonicity. Just because certain books may have sat for a time in the lists of Scripture used by the early church, did that make them canonical? According to the Reformed view, the canon is predetermined by God's inspiration, and the church merely recognizes these books as inspired. The early church was in the process of this, and just because they may have included some books initially that were not divine, and then came to exclude those works at a later date, does not mean that some canonical works were thrown out of the canon. Rather, they were recognized as not having been canonical in the first place, and thus their removal.

Discuss the apocrypha. When did the Roman Catholic church officially add these (during the Council of Trent) and why (to find texts to back up certain false doctrines with more "authority" than they had in the recognized canon). Ask him to read these apocryphal tales and compare them with the books in the Protestant canon and see if they hold a candle to them in style and content (only Ecclesiasticus comes anywhere close, in my opinion).

Some great reading for you in this area will be found in Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, Second Topic, pp. 95-133. Also, for the NT specifically, read Ridderbos' Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures. It's just a paperback of about 80pp., but it addressed some of this stuff in a direct and convincing manner. For the issue of God deciding canonicity, see WCF 1.4.

 

[SRoper]

Now the New Testament has had a break with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The writer appears to be making up the facts as he goes along. The Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain the NT.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Some stories can get “embellished over time” yet “….prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:21) Prophecy in this usage refers to all writing of Scripture, where the Word of God was spoken forth. “Oral tradition,” – as in the case of Moses writing down what was given to him by ancient testimony – when quickened and superintended by the Holy Spirit, can well be inspired by God and infallible. Consider this from Dr. D.A. Waite’s commentary on the Book of Genesis:

Notice that Noah...who died in 2006, could have known Abram who was 88 years old when Noah died. Notice that the possible line of information which Moses could have had (in addition to the direct inspiration from God Himself) pertaining to the creation of the universe, the creation of animal and plant life, the creation of man himself, the flood, the tower of Babel, and all the events covered in the first five books of the Bible, could have been as follows:

(1) Adam, who learned directly from God about creation, with all its details, could have passed it on to

(2) Lamech, the father of Noah, who in turn could have told it to his grandson

(3) Shem, the son of Noah, who was an eye-witness to the flood, and could have passed it all on to

(4) Levi, one of the sons of Jacob, who could have passed these things on to

(5) Moses, his great-grandson, who wrote about it in the Bible.​

-------------
Lest anyone think this was “just a Fundamentalist Baptist’s views” (the scholarship and wisdom of these FBs is superior especially in the areas of history and of the Biblical texts), Calvin was of the same mind:

The intention of Moses in beginning his Book with the creation of the world, is, to render God, as it were, visible to us in his works. But here presumptuous men rise up, and scoffingly inquire, whence was this revealed to Moses? They therefore suppose him to be speaking fabulously of things unknown, because he was neither a spectator of the events he records, nor had learned the truth of them by reading. Such is their reasoning; but their dishonesty is easily exposed. For if they can destroy the credit of this history, because it is traced back through a long series of past ages, let them also prove those prophecies to be false in which the same history predicts occurrences which did not take place till many centuries afterwards. Those things, I affirm, are clear and obvious, which Moses testifies concerning the vocation of the Gentiles, the accomplishment of which occurred nearly two thousand years after his death. Was not he, who by the Spirit foresaw an event remotely future, and hidden at the time from the perception of mankind, capable of understanding whether the world was created by God, especially seeing that he was taught by a Divine Master? For he does not here put forward divinations of his own, but is the instrument of the Holy Spirit for the publication of those things which it was of importance for all men to know. They greatly err in deeming it absurd that the order of the creation, which had been previously unknown, should at length have been described and explained by him. For he does not transmit to memory things before unheard of, but for the first time consigns to writing facts which the fathers had delivered as from hand to hand, through a long succession of years, to their children. Can we conceive that man was so placed in the earth as to be ignorant of his own origin, and of the origin of those things which he enjoyed? No sane person doubts that Adam was well-instructed respecting them all. Was he indeed afterwards dumb? Were the holy Patriarchs so ungrateful as to suppress in silence such necessary instruction? Did Noah, warned by a divine judgment so memorable, neglect to transmit it to posterity? Abraham is expressly honored with this eulogy that he was the teacher and the master of his family, (Genesis 18:19.) And we know that, long before the time of Moses, an acquaintance with the covenant into which God had entered with their fathers was common to the whole people. When he says that the Israelites were sprung from a holy race, which God had chosen for himself, he does not propound it as something new, but only commemorates what all held, what the old men themselves had received from their ancestors, and what, in short, was entirely uncontroverted among them. Therefore, we ought not to doubt that The Creation of the World, as here described was already known through the ancient and perpetual tradition of the Fathers. Yet, since nothing is more easy than that the truth of God should be so corrupted by men, that, in a long succession of time, it should, as it were, degenerate from itself, it pleased the Lord to commit the history to writing, for the purpose of preserving its purity. Moses, therefore, has established the credibility of that doctrine which is contained in his writings, and which, by the carelessness of men, might otherwise have been lost. Commentary on Genesis (Baker, 1999), pp. 58, 59 [see also the same online: http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol01/htm/vi.htm, 2nd ¶].​

Henry Morris takes somewhat the same view in his commentary on Genesis. After showing that Christ indicated Moses authored those things concerning Himself “which were written in the law of Moses” (Luke 24:44), Morris states:

Assuming that Moses was responsible for the Book of Genesis as it has come down to us, there still remains the question as to the method by which he received and transmitted it. There are three possibilities: (a) he received it all by direct revelation from God, either in the form of audible words dictated by God and transcribed by him, or else by visions given him of the great events of the past, which he then put down in his own words, as guided subconsciously by the Holy Spirit; (b) he received it all by oral traditions, passed down over the centuries from father to son, which he then collected and wrote down, again guided by the Holy Spirit; (c) he took actual written records of the past, collected them, and brought them together into a final form, again as guided by the Holy Spirit. (The Genesis Record; Baker, p. 25)​

After some discussion he opts for version (c). E.J. Young, in his An Introduction to the Old Testament (Eerdmans, 1964) says essentially the same thing (pp. 45, 46).

H.C. Leupold, in his Exposition of Genesis (Baker, 1942), says,

Since all the things recorded in Genesis transpired before Moses’ day by more than four hundred years at the least, the question arises, did Moses have sources available for compiling the Genesis account as we have it? We cannot deny the possibility that God may have revealed to Moses the entire subject matter of Genesis. On the other hand, since sources were, no doubt, available and reliable, we see no reason why Moses should not have used all available material and, being guided in his task by the Spirit of inspiration, have produced an essential portion of divine revelation. For it seems highly probable that godly men preserved a reliable record of God’s revelation and dealings with men, and that with most painstaking care. The Creation record was obtainable only by revelation, which revelation would have seemed essential for Adam. This as well as all other truth that was left to him, as well as a record of his own experiences required but a few links in the chain of tradition to bring it down to Joseph’s time. For a careful examination of the Biblical genealogies (Gen. 5 and 11) reveals that Adam lived till the time of Lamech; Lamech to the time of Shem; Shem to the time of Jacob; Jacob would, without a doubt, transmit what he knew to Joseph. Since even Abraham already lived in a literary age, and Judah carried a seal (Gen. 38:18), and Joseph was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, it seems utterly impossible that these men should have refrained from committing this valuable and reliable tradition to writing. Such tradition in written form Moses might well have found in his day and made extensive use of, nor would such use conflict with inspiration in as much as much later historical books, especially Kings and Chronicles, testify to the abundant use of source materials. (pp. 8, 9)​

Nonetheless, as Adam M. says, it may indeed have been revealed to Moses directly by God. The point is, whichever view one takes, when the Holy Spirit guides His seers and prophets to speak and to write, and when these oral or written records are transmitted to their descendants under this same Spirit’s guidance and superintendence, we may expect complete fidelity to the original revelation. The lack of understanding the supernatural aspect of the origin and preservation of God’s revelation to men leads men to err with regard to it.

As Paul said, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Cor. 2:14)

Archeological discoveries continue to support the Biblical record. For example, two good books on this are (though I am not in the states so as to keep abreast of even newer works in the same vein): Israel In Egypt by James K. Hoffmeier (Oxford Univ. Press, 1996); Archaeology & The Old Testament by Alfred J. Hoerth (Baker, 2001)

The doctrines of the inspiration and the preservation of Scripture – Old Testament and New Testament each according to their respective cases – remain core teachings for the truth and defense of the Gospel. Of course the original OT documents do not exist at this time – even stones turn to dust after thousands of years! – but the process of preservation instituted by God through the supervision and care of the priesthood ensured their survival (cf. Deuteronomy 17:18; 31:9-13, 24-26). And when the nation en masse backslid, God Himself intervened to keep the Scriptures (2 Kings 22:8).

An excerpt from E.F. Hills’ The King James Version Defended:

By Ezra and his successors, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, all the Old Testament books were gathered together into one Old Testament canon, and their texts were purged of errors and preserved until the days of our Lord's earthly ministry. By that time the Old Testament text was so firmly established that even the Jews' rejection of Christ could not disturb it. Unbelieving Jewish scribes transmitted this traditional Hebrew Old Testament text blindly but faithfully, until the dawn of the Protestant Reformation. As Augustine said long ago, these Jewish scribes were the librarians of the Christian Church. (2) In the providence of God they took care of the Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures until at length the time was ripe for Christians to make general use of them. (p. 93)​

This can also be found online under “2. How The Old Testament Text Was Preserved, subsection (b): http://www.biblebelievers.com/Hills_KJVD_Chapter4.htm.

The statement of the writer above that “Ezra….did not have all the scrolls from the Temple” is sheer balderdash! The “cream of the crop” of the Israelites were taken to Babylon – many godly among them, including priests and scribes, and they knew the vital importance of retaining their documents. Some of the Jews in captivity were treated well (Daniel and his friends, for example), and there is no reason at all to think they were bereft of their most precious Scriptures (cf. Daniel 9:2).

In the New Testament times, we have the Lord Jesus telling the disciples/apostles, “the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

The writer of the critique above is proceeding on a merely naturalistic basis, not accounting for the supernatural activity of the Almighty.

B.B. Warfield, in The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, says, "In the apprehension...of the earliest churches, the 'Scriptures' were not a closed but an increasing canon." (p. 412) [All emphases here and immediately below are by Warfield.]

Warfield has an interesting take on this issue:

...it was not exactly apostolic authority which in the estimation of the earliest churches, constituted a book a portion of the 'canon'....The principle of canonicity was not apostolic authorship, but imposition by the apostles as 'law'....And in imposing new books [on top of the 'old books' of the O.T.] on the same churches, by the same apostolical authority, they did not confine themselves to books of their own composition. It is the Gospel according to Luke, a man who was not an apostle, which Paul parallels in 1 Tim 5:18 with Deuteronomy as equally 'Scripture' with it, in the first extant quotation of a New Testament book as Scripture. (Ibid., pp 415, 416)​

We begin to get a glimpse of the forces at work in determining the N.T. canon, and that was, primarily, the authorization of the apostles themselves, as agents of the Spirit of God.

Those books “that the Church decided to throw out of the canon” were unworthy of inclusion into the canon. According to His promise, the Lord guided His people to accept and reject books of Scripture according to His will, and their Spirit-illumined judgment.

To grant authority to the apostate Roman organization to weigh in on the authentic canon would be equivalent to African-Americans granting the (“new and improved”) KKK authority to govern their communities – or the same with Jews granting such to the Nazi party. Murderers may well be forgiven, but organizations and their continuing wicked and violent (spiritually violent, if not always physically) policies and programs warrant only condemnation. To accord such a status of respectability to Rome is a grotesquerie. Murderers and perverters of the pure gospel of God’s grace have no part in determining the canon of Scripture or any other business pertaining to the Kingdom (Psalm 50:16-22). For individual Catholics I have a heart, and may well have respect and affection, but not to the organization.

This piece of writing you ask us concerning, Andrew, is simply rehashed attacks that have been beaten down numerous times, but, like a venomous snake still in its death-throes, still moves and twitches a little.

A new and excellent book out on textual issues (from a King James Bible defense position) is David Cloud's, Faith vs. the Modern Bible Versions: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/books/bible-versions.html

Steve