Can I Trust the Bible? (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

8/29/2017

As the Brookside Institute champions the value of biblical literacy, we don't do this in some abstract or indifferent way. We want to value biblical literacy so that we're transformed by the Bible.

If that's the case, that means there's a whole lot riding on whether the Bible is a trustworthy book. Some version of "Can I trust the Bible?" is being asked in lots of ways today, and so responding to this question is important. Here's why: The greater our confidence IN the Bible, the more we'll base our lives ON the Bible. We'll never base our lives on something we don't have confidence in.

This last weekend, I spent about 30 minutes responding this question, "Can I trust the Bible?" Check out the video below to see what I said.

Can I Trust The Bible? from Brookside Church on Vimeo.

Interested in more on this? Check out the following posts:

3 Comments

Ron

10/12/2017 01:42:01 pm

I'd like to respond with a few things:

I know the go to verse for biblical inspiration is always 2 Timothy but it should be pointed out that there are not many scholars that think Paul wrote this. Plus it would have been talking about the Old Testament. Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy and 2nd Thessalonians are considered pseudonymous. When the canon was decided upon they weren't able to determine this but we can now with a decent amount of certainty. I know Steve always
towed the traditional line but most scholars do not think that
the Pentateuch was written by Moses. Its a combination of
multiple written sources redacted together by editors. The Gospels are anonymous and only later were names attached.

You didn't really tell the whole story regarding variants. What about those things that are not in our oldest and best manuscripts. Like the women caught in adultery. Jesus's bloody sweat. What about the ending of Mark going past 16:8? That's
added later because some scribe didn't like how Mark ended at
16:8. It was too abrupt. Why would Mark have added his Gospel that way anyway. Is sort of strange.

What about Acts when it says that Paul after his conversion went to Jerusalem but Paul says he definitely didn't go there until 3 years later (Galations).

When Jairus went to Jesus regarding his daughter was she already dead or sick. Matthew vs Mark.

Jesus in Matthew says no signs will be given to anyone. In John that's all he does is signs. In Mark he normally doesn't want anyone to say who he is. In John Jesus is telling everyone about himself. In the Gospels he is the "Son of God" In John
he's God.

As you go from the earliest Gospel (Mark) to John the Jews become more and more responsible for Jesus's death and Pontious Pilate looks more innocent.

Compare the birth accounts side by side in both Matthew and Luke. How did Jesus get to Bethlehem etc.

Compare the trial and death narratives side by side between the four Gospels.

Compare the resurrection accounts side by side.

Most scholars think that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. Compare where Matthew and Luke made changes (and corrections) to what Mark says.

Mark...Jesus's ministry looks to be about 1 year (One Passover) but John mentions 3 Passovers.

In Matthew Jesus says they needed to follow the Law. Paul says something else entirely.

I could go on and on. I just think we need to be more realistic regarding the issues that confront us when we view the bible as inerrant and infallible. The accounts differ because the writers
were trying to get across different things theologically. They weren't writing historical accounts. They each express different
views about Jesus and that's ok.

10/16/2017 02:08:28 pm

To make a clarification regarding what I said earlier. The variants I spoke of (women caught in adultery. Jesus's bloody sweat the ending of Mark) doesn't really affect doctrine in any way. But the other things, the discrepancies between what the biblical authors say in their accounts should give us pause. For myself I see the Bible as very human but I also see it as very rich in what it has to say. I think our Christian leaders tend to gloss over the differences and that is a shame. Maybe because as Christians the bible is the only thing tangible that we have so we want it to be perfect and without error. In doing that we fail to appreciate the differences and fail to understand each author and the point that he is trying to make. The Gospels, rather than simply being completely accurate accounts of what really
happened are theological reflections on the significance of Jesus. Different reflections, by different authors, all of whom have something different to teach us. Is Matthew's birth narrative completely historical ? Does it need to be? He's trying to present Jesus as the new Moses. I see that and I appreciate the significance of what Matthew is trying to present. I really don't want to blend all of the accounts together.

Tim Wiebe

10/26/2017 02:44:19 pm

Ron,

Thanks for checking in, and sorry for my delayed response! (I was out of the office for a few days, and am still getting unburied.)

You bring up lots of points in your comments! :) In a 35 min sermon there's only so much content you can cover and present, so I'm grateful for this chance to unpack things a bit more.

There are certainly things you say that I agree with (e.g. that the oldest and best manuscripts don't include much of John 8 or Mark 16:9ff), and that we don't want to simply blend all of the gospel accounts together, but need to let their individual (and complementary) perspectives and theological emphases stand out. Mark Strauss's _Four Portraits, One Jesus_ is helpful here, and a good counterbalance to some of the "harmonizing approaches" of the 20th century.

Other things you say I'd nuance a bit: While the gospels and OT history reflect on things theologically and include that in their presentation, at the same time I would maintain that these same writings aren't a-historical or contrary to history. And while editors had their hands in the composition of the final form of the Pentateuch, I would say Moses was very involved in the authorship. One more: While the Bible was written by humans, I would maintain the biblical doctrine of inspiration that says God is the primary Author. He certainly used humans, but communicated His Word though people - He provided it (revelation) and protected it (canon and transmission).

And still other things I would disagree with you on. (As you read, know I've got a gracious tone as I type this!) Your claim of contradictions, for e.g. - there are evangelical, scholarly responses to each of the issues you bring up. These responses deal with the text and maintain a high view of Scripture (inspired, inerrant, authoritative, sufficient, etc.).

I know I didn't address everything, but I'd better draw this to a close. I've pointed to helpful resources on "bibliology" (the study of the Bible - what it is and how we got it) before. You can see some of these here: https://www.thebrooksideinstitute.net/blog/4-great-resources-to-boost-your-confidence-in-the-bible

One more helpful resource is D.A. Carson's recent _The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures_. You can read a little more about that here, if you'd like: https://www.thebrooksideinstitute.net/blog/true-dat-im-really-looking-forward-to-this-new-book-on-biblical-authority

Thanks again for chiming in!
tim