“Is the Bible Just Another Good Book?”


Some basic facts about the Bible.

The Bible is a collection of writings about God’s dealing with the world and mankind in terms of salvation. The Bible was written over a period of approximately 1500 years by some 40 different authors, so it is really a “book of books.” The exact dating of writing cannot be set definitively for all parts of the Bible, though for some parts the dating is generally known. The exact number of authors is also not known because several of the writings within the Bible do not present an author, and there is not agreement in regard to the authorship of other writings. Yet the Bible is nevertheless one book. This can be seen in the focus of the writings, in the consistency of the writings in that there are not internal contradictions, and in the claims of the writings in that they assert that they are God’s word.

The Bible is divided into two testaments, also called covenants - the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament contains 39 books, and mainly records God’s dealings with His chosen people, Israel, and in particular through covenants, or promises, He made with His people through Abraham, Moses, and David. In our English versions, the Old Testament is divided into the Law, History, Poetry, and the Prophets of which there are the so-called major prophets and minor prophets.

The New Testament contains 27 books and is the story of the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Testament about the Messiah (another word for Savior). It deals with the new covenant God has made with mankind in Jesus, the Messiah. In general, the New Testament books are referred to as the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Letters, and the Revelation of John.

The arrangement of the books of Bible is not necessarily in chronological order. This is partly so because the Bible is not meant to be a history book, per se, the way we would ordinarily think of a history book. However, the Bible is historical, meaning that the Bible contains historical facts. Also, the Bible is not meant to be a science book, per se, the way we would ordinarily think of a book of science. However, the Bible is scientific, meaning that what is in the Bible is not inconsistent with the findings of science. Note, at the same time, that some of the things the Bible says cannot be proven through empirical (i.e., scientific) means. For example, the statement of Jesus, “Before the world was, I am.” cannot be proved one way or the other.)

Some people suggest that the Bible is “a record of man’s religious striving toward and encounters with God - an essentially human book.” (Paul Little, Know What and Why You Believe, p. 37) But however the Bible is described, it claims to be the written word of God, it is the best selling book of all history, and it has been translated into more languages than any other book.


Three reasons the Bible is not just another good book

1. The Bible is authoritative.

The Bible claims to be from God. One verse says that “All Scripture is inspired by God ...” ( II Timothy 3:16) Theologian Carl F. H. Henry says that the Bible “is not merely an anthology of assorted writings whose authors speak reliably for God, but one comprehensively unified divine utterance.” In other words, the Bible contains God’s revelation of Himself and His plan of salvation. While God has revealed Himself in several different ways, for instance in nature and in creation (One verse states, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen ....” Romans 1:20), He has also revealed Himself in words and sentences that communicate ideas as propositions, indeed as truthful propositions.

Some of those words spoken by God and recorded in the bible were spoken by Jesus who is God’s most complete revelation of Himself. (In one New Testament Book the following words are recorded: “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son ....” Hebrews 1:1 & 2) Jesus, as God’s fullest revelation of Himself, spoke in rational, verbal form, and claimed His words to be the words of God. (For example, Jesus said, “Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and thjat the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.” John 14:10)

Thus, as Carl F.H. Henry writes, “Through his revealed Word, reliably conveyed in Holy Scripture, God publishes the fact and direction of his authority over mankind.” Henry goes on to say that the Bible is Holy Scripture if we recognize it as “the one divinely given Word by which God intends to rule the Christian community and in which he presently confronts the church with a norm higher than her own consciousness.” In short, if God is God, and He is who He says He is - namely, the Sovereign creator and sustainer of the universe and all that occurs therein, who exists outside of creation - and He has spoken in statements and words as contained in the Bible, then the Bible is authoritative.

Further, the authority of the Bible is absolute, not relative. To say that the authority of the Bible is relative is to say that we can determine authority, that the Bible is not truly normative, or that the Bible is subordinate to our own speculation or judgment or whatever. In other words, if we insist on the relative authority of the Bible, we more than weaken it, we make it subjective, and we in essence place ourselves above God. Quoting Henry again, “The struggle against the authority of the Bible is ... inseparable from the struggle against divine authority ...” The view that the authority of the Bible is relative has taken various forms. It can be seen in the form of rationalism which denies the possibility of any supernatural revelation, or at least makes human reason the final judge of revelation, in the form of any religion which takes the view that the Bible is the product of the human mind, or the church, as opposed to being from God, in the form of mysticism which places experience as equal to the Bible in terms of authority, in the form of the view that the Bible is fallible, and in the form of any approach (or cult) that places the writings of one, typically the leader, as equal to the Bible in terms of authority.
Is it possible to prove that the Bible is from God? Not scientifically, but there are bases on which to believe (as a matter of faith) that the Bible is from God and is therefore authoritative.
Scientific and archeological findings are consistent with what the Bible says. The propositional truths of the Bible bear out in life. The historical fact of Jesus Christ, His life, death and resurrection “prove” that what He said - and therefore what God said - is true. The life and witness of the church and believers through the ages testifies to the authority of the Bible. And the prophecies in the Bible that have come true.

2. The Bible is inspired.

What is inspiration? The concept of inspiration derives from the fact that the Bible “originated in the mind of God, not in the mind of man.” (Know What and Why You Believe)
Revelation concerns the content by which God is disclosed (or disclosed about Himself), whereas inspiration concerns the record of that content. In our day, we typically think of and use the words inspiration and inspired in the sense of creativity (e.g., Bach’s music is inspired). But this is not the Biblical meaning of the word. The Biblical meaning is “God-produced,” with the emphasis on divine initiative and impartation, not human creativity. In other words, God “breathed-out” what the writers convey in the Bible; God “superintended” the writers of the Bible in that they wrote what God wanted them to write and were kept from error is so doing
Charles Ryrie, a noted theologian, says that Biblical inspiration “is God’s superintendence of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities, they composed and recorded without error His revelation to man in the words of the original autographs.” Thus, God did not dictate the bible; the writers were not machines.

What is written in the Bible? Some material is directly from God. For example, God spoke directly to Moses (Exodus 19:3 - “And Moses went up to God, and the lord called to him from the mountain saying ...”; Exodus 20:1 - “Then God spoke all these words ...”), and to the prophets of the Old Testament. Some material in the Bible is the recording of events witnessed by the writers, as the battles of Joshua and the Israelites and Peter running into the empty tomb of Jesus (John 20). Some material in the Bible is based on records or writings already in existence when that portion of the Bible was written. For example, Luke reviewed various materials about Jesus for his book (Luke 1:1-4 - “Luke investigated everything”; Acts 17:23 & 28 - Paul refers to an inscription and the words of a Greek poet.) Some words recorded are from others. (e.g., the words of Satan, Job’s three friends and Job in the book of Job; the words of King Nebuchadnezzar in the book of Daniel.) Yet, all of such material is recorded by God’s intention and inspiration, and all the words in the Bible are therefore inspired as opposed to merely some of the words, or only the writer’s thoughts.

Some maintain that the Bible “contains” the Word of God rather than “is” the Word of God. The problem with this approach is that one then has no way to determine which parts of the Bible are trustworthy (from God) and which are not. The only way to do that would be through human reason, which is fallible. Thus, if the Bible “is” the Word of God, then it is authoritative, and stands above both human reason and tradition. So then, while the words were composed by individuals using their personalities and thoughts, God, by His Holy Spirit, has inspired and thus guaranteed both the “authenticity and reliability” of the very words.
The interpretation of the inspired words of the Bible is an issue that is often oversimplified. There is a tendency to use only 2 categories - literal or figurative interpretation.
Using only literal interpretation does not take into account figures of speech and poetic language.
Using only figurative interpretation does not take into account clearly literal language. The keys indicators to take into account in determining correct interpretation are asking the following questions: to whom was the passage written; is the command to be applied universally or is it limited in scope; what are the primary and secondary applications; what is the context; what type of language is used (e.g., the use of “phenomenological” language which describes things as they appear to be); what other scripture says; what are the themes; is this an area in which Bible information is incomplete; and what is the true basis of the reader’s conflicts, presuppositions and philosophy.

Which writings/books are inspired? Already stated is that the Bible consists of 66 different books written by some 40 different authors. But what about other books, for example, those that are included in the Catholic version of the Bible (known as the “Apocrypha”)? The “Canon” of scripture is the collection of the “inspired” books. It is not the Canon that determined whether or not a book was inspired; rather, the Canon was the “official” recognition of books that were already treated as authoritative and inspired. It is not clear exactly when the Old Testament Canon was finalized. The Jews recognized certain writings as inspired by God and authoritative. (See Exodus 24:4, 7, 12; 34:27 & 28; Deuteronomy 4:1 & 2, 5-8; 28:58; Joshua1:7b & 8; 8:34 & 35; II Kings 22:8-10; 23:2 & 3; Ezra 7:6, 10; Nehemiah 8:1-8; Jeremiah. 36:1 et seq.; and Daniel 9:2) By Jesus’ day, the collection of “scriptures” was complete, and these were quoted by Him and other New Testament writers as holy scripture. The Apocrypha (these are: I & II Maccabees, I & II Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasses) were never recognized by the Jews as inspired

The criteria used with respect to the New Testament Canon was whether the book “apostolic” in origin, was the book used and recognized by the church as inspired, and did the book teach sound doctrine. The entire canon, both Old and New Testaments, became fixed in the 4th century, with the church council held at Carthage in 397AD closing the canon. Thus, the canon marks the Biblical books, and protects against spurious writings put forth as genuine, and underscores the validity of actual genuine scripture.

3. The Bible is accurate and reliable.

If the Bible is God’s word and not just another good book, then it must be accurate and reliable. Such point is counter to the argument that the Bible is an unreliable set of documents that cannot be trusted. One issue relating to the accuracy of the Bible is that the actual “original” documents are not available. Thus, for example, the original manuscripts of what Moses’ wrote (the Pentateuch), or what Paul, or of any of the other writers wrote, do not exist. However, “copies” of the original documents from both the Old and the New Testaments are available. It is from these copied manuscripts that translators work to prepare the Bible translations we have today.

As to the Old Testament manuscripts, copies were made by “scribes” who were devout Jews with high devotion to God and an acute awareness of the need for accuracy in copying. The oldest complete text of the Old Testament is called the “Masoretic” text, the product of a group of Jewish scribes called the Massoretes. It dates from ca. 900AD. The “Dead Sea Scrolls”, discovered in 1947, are manuscripts of parts of almost all the books of the Old Testament that were saved in jars and placed in caves near the Dead Sea by a group of Jews who lived at a place called Qumran ca. 150BC to 70AD. When the Dead Sea Scrolls are compared to the Masoretic text, there are very few differences, most of which are spelling variants of the same word, some of which are the exclusion of a word which can be inferred from the context, and only a very few or which relate to differing words. Such a comparison shows the high degree of accuracy of the copying.

The Septuagint is the oldest Greek translation of the OT (called the LXX on the basis that apparently 70 Jewish scholars produced it ca. 200BC). When compared to the Masoretic text and the Dead Sea scrolls, again, there are very few differences, most of which are of the minor variety just indicated. There is a third family of Old Testament texts which were preserved by the Samaritans, and which, when compared with the other texts, shows a remarkable degree of accuracy. Thus, by comparing all the texts, the accuracy of the copying from the original is clear, and dates back to as early as 200BC or so, such that it is a reasonable inference that earlier copies are just as accurate and therefore our present translations are from texts that are very close indeed to the original manuscripts.

The New Testament was written in Greek and more than 20,000 manuscripts of it, or parts of it, survive today, including several thousand complete manuscripts. Some 5000 of these documents are in Greek. There are 2 complete manuscripts of the New Testament that date from the 4th century AD, which is only 250 years or so after the last book in the New Testament was written (ca. 100AD). The foregoing number of New Testament manuscripts are far and away more in number and quality those of any other piece of ancient literature, all of the latter being accepted without question. For example, for Caesar’s Gallic War there are 9 or 10 good manuscripts, all of which were written approximately 900 years after Caesar; the earliest copies of the writings of Aristotle, written circa 300BC date from around 1,100AD. Simply the sheer volume of extant New Testament documents, which show a startling degree of accuracy when compared one with another, argues for the reliability and accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts which are used for translating purposes.

Other evidence of the accuracy and reliability of New Testament documents includes: references and quotations of the New Testament by other ancient writers, both friends and enemies of Christianity; comparisons among translations into various languages (Syriac, Egyptian or Coptic, Latin) from various manuscripts; and lectionaries which quote from translations dating to the 6th century AD and before. Altogether, as the late Frederic Kenyon, a world- renowned scholar of ancient manuscripts said: “The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.”

The English translations are all based on the existing manuscripts of the Bible and take into account the latest scholarship and archeological findings. There are different types of translations including word for word, or “literal” (also generally called “formal equivalence”), thought for thought (also called “dynamic equivalence” or “functional equivalence”), and paraphrase. Examples include the following: King James Version - literal; New American Standard Version - strictly literal; The Living Bible - paraphrase; New Revised Standard Version - literal; New American Bible - literal; New International Version - literal but with idiomatic freedom; New Living Translation - dynamic equivalence; Contemporary English Version - dynamic equivalence; and The Message - paraphrase. The techniques used in translation work include committees of scholars, and individual work.