{"id":709,"date":"2015-11-23T18:00:34","date_gmt":"2015-11-24T00:00:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/?p=709"},"modified":"2015-11-10T10:46:04","modified_gmt":"2015-11-10T16:46:04","slug":"practical-apologetics-reliability-of-the-bible-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/?p=709","title":{"rendered":"Practical Apologetics &#8211; Reliability of the Bible, Part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/Practical-Apologetics-Graphic-e1447173892523.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-739 alignleft\" src=\"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/Practical-Apologetics-Graphic-e1447173892523-300x159.jpg?resize=300%2C159\" alt=\"Practical Apologetics Graphic\" width=\"300\" height=\"159\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/Practical-Apologetics-Graphic-e1447173892523.jpg?resize=300%2C159 300w, https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/Practical-Apologetics-Graphic-e1447173892523.jpg?resize=1024%2C544 1024w, https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/Practical-Apologetics-Graphic-e1447173892523.jpg?w=1637 1637w, https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/Practical-Apologetics-Graphic-e1447173892523.jpg?w=1228 1228w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" data-recalc-dims=\"1\" \/><\/a>For the second part on the reliability of the Bible, we are going to take a look another favorite subject that skeptics like to bring up; the authorship of the books in the Bible.\u00a0 The idea of this type of attack is that if the skeptic can make win the question who wrote a particular book of the Bible then the text cannot be reliable.\u00a0 Again, please keep in mind I am keeping these arguments at a layman\u2019s level of someone who has had little prior exposure to these type of challenges.\u00a0 This is a primer to give reason to one\u2019s faith and to answer basic challenges.\u00a0 It will not equip you to debate an experienced or hard-core skeptic.<!--more--><\/p>\n<p>In my opinion, these lines of arguments are among the weakest of those challenging the biblical reliability.\u00a0 Yet, it remains a common piece in the arsenal of the &#8220;Historical Jesus&#8221; people.\u00a0 The most significant problem &#8211; one that can prevent even having a conversation &#8211; is that there is frequently a presumption that is no divine inspiration.\u00a0 I.e. that God had no role in the creation of the Bible.\u00a0 For the believer, God&#8217;s inspiration is an essential component of the Bible for the believer.\u00a0 It is not something that can be given up.\u00a0 You may find yourself better off first discussing whether or not there is a God if you are not comfortable relying on primarily historical arguments.\u00a0 Of course, there is an obvious reason skeptics want to disallow divine inspiration &#8211; it is rather self-defeating for at least the atheist.<\/p>\n<p>Most of the arguments on authorship focus on the Old Testament.\u00a0 In the New Testament, the challenge tends to center on either the source material for the gospels or somewhat weak arguments on the authorship of the epistles.\u00a0 I will address the New Testament issues in a separate article.\u00a0 Just to warn you, the discussion on the Old Testament will likely be the single most difficult subject I write about in this entire apologetics series.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The Old Testament<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>I am going to discuss three areas of attack for the Old Testament.\u00a0 There are others, but these tend to be the most common.\u00a0 What I am not going to do is defend the content or doctrines.\u00a0 That is another discussion to have after you have established reliability.\u00a0 The areas we will cover are:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The first 5 books of the OT, known as the Pentateuch.<\/li>\n<li>The book of Isaiah.<\/li>\n<li>The book of Daniel.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The hard part will be the part on the Pentateuch.\u00a0 The best approach will be to simply dive in and take it slow.<\/p>\n<p><em>The Pentateuch<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The first five books of the Bible &#8211; traditionally attributed to Moses &#8211; are known as the Pentateuch.\u00a0 These books establish the origins of Man and Israel and law down the formal declaration of God&#8217;s law.\u00a0 Outside of the first 12 books of Genesis (Creation to Flood), the primary effort to undermine the Pentateuch involves eliminating Moses as author and looking at it as an <em>evolved<\/em> work.<\/p>\n<p>There is some technical background necessary here.\u00a0 In the mid-1800&#8217;s the theory was developed that the first five books were actually compiled by a group of editors around 950 BC rather than around 1400-1600 BC.\u00a0 Moses is typically out of the picture.\u00a0 This was meant to address some apparent inconsistencies in the books.\u00a0 Examples can include things such as the two creation accounts in Genesis or the burial of Moses (how could Moses have written <em>that<\/em>?).\u00a0 But it also includes variations in style of writing that may occur.<\/p>\n<p>My initial response is, &#8220;So what?&#8221;\u00a0 Mosaic authorship is only a tradition, though Jewish history strongly adheres to it.\u00a0 The simple truth is that inspiration by God has nothing at all to do with Moses as author.\u00a0 The text itself contains no assertion of authorship, either.\u00a0 In fact, this is really the case with all the criticisms of authorship.\u00a0 In logic, this is called a &#8220;Straw Man&#8221; fallacy.\u00a0 By destroying an irrelevant issue &#8211; a straw man &#8211; you claim to have also defeated the main point.\u00a0\u00a0 However, in this case the main point is actually divine inspiration of the text. Bottom line?\u00a0 Authorship is no issue regarding reliability of the Pentateuch.<\/p>\n<p>For the curious, this argumentation is called the JEDP theory or the Wellhausen hypothesis.\u00a0 The letters of JEDP refer to the four category of sources Wellhausen theorized.\u00a0 There are many scholarly responses to this approach and frankly, even within theological circles there are many that still hold to it.\u00a0 Since I am focusing on the layman\u2019s approach, I will leave it to you to search for more information if you are interested.\u00a0 The important part is that this theory has no impact on the reliability of scripture.<\/p>\n<p>Within the first 12 books, probably the most common objection I encounter is the reference as \u201cCreation myth\u201d or \u201cFlood myth.\u201d\u00a0 This is actually another logical fallacy that relies on you not knowing what a myth is.\u00a0 This is called a false dilemma.\u00a0 Let\u2019s consider the definition of a myth in the context of the creation and flood stories:<\/p>\n<p>a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.<\/p>\n<p>In other words, myth is an explanatory story.\u00a0 The <em>very<\/em> important part is the \u201cwith or without a determinable basis of fact.\u201d\u00a0 Let me rephrase this.\u00a0 That something is called myth in the literary sense used in Genesis does not have any bearing on whether or not it is true!\u00a0 <strong>Do not confuse myth with fable, legend <u>or<\/u> fiction.<\/strong>\u00a0 The person challenging you may not even be aware of this distinction.\u00a0 I\u2019m quite willing to yield the myth nature of these stories without giving an inch on whether or not they are true and dropping the burden of proof back to them.\u00a0 Actual argument for the truth of Genesis is a discussion that I will address in a separate article where I can go into the depth the subject requires.\u00a0 I will leave it that the Genesis account is not in conflict with modern observations on the universe.<\/p>\n<p>There is one final item on this subject that I have encountered on the creation story that I want to address.\u00a0 You may well find<\/p>\n<p><em>The Book of Isaiah<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Authorship of the book of Isaiah is another commonly used argument to discredit the reliability of the Old Testament.\u00a0 The logical basis of this argument is, in my opinion, by far the weakest of the three that I will be covering in this short article.\u00a0 The short version of this argument goes as follows.<\/p>\n<p>Literary analysis of Isaiah suggests there may have been as many as three separate authors.\u00a0 There are three distinct changes in writing style that lead to this conclusion.\u00a0 Their writings were later compiled by unknown editors into the single book we call <em>Isaiah<\/em>.\u00a0 Because of this origin, it was written much later than traditionally held.\u00a0 Since we cannot trust the authorship or the timing of its writing, we cannot trust the book.<\/p>\n<p>This argument is a classic straw man argument that ignores Middle Eastern literature, the origin of the analysis of Isaiah and the concept of divine inspiration.\u00a0 In honesty, I think this is more than anything an attempt to undermine or discount the prophecy of Isaiah 53, the suffering servant.\u00a0 Under this kind of analysis, while Isaiah certainly wrote a major portion of the book bearing his name, he almost would not have been the author of that passage.<\/p>\n<p>First, one must understand one important principle in Middle Eastern literature.\u00a0 It was <em>common<\/em> for the disciples of a great teacher to write in that teacher\u2019s name.\u00a0 This is often accused of being an attempt to gain importance to the writing, but there is much more.\u00a0 It is also a sign of humility and respect.\u00a0 These disciples may be doing the writing, but the ideas and principles they are communicating are those of their master or his school of thought.\u00a0 It was also a sign of trust on the part of the master to grant the authority to write \u201cin his name.\u201d\u00a0 We actually see this idea reflected in the New Testament when Jesus gives the apostles the right to act in His name.\u00a0 In short, this is a non-issue in any discussion of the reliability of Isaiah.<\/p>\n<p>That last fact leads directly to the next point.\u00a0 Guess who it was that originally came up with this idea regarding the authorship of Isaiah?\u00a0 It was Christian scholars not skeptics.\u00a0 From a theological point, this discussion of the book\u2019s authorship is irrelevant \u2013 especially where it concerns its prophetic passages.\u00a0 Remember that even if some of the passages were written during the Exile, the messianic prophecies were still written 600 years before Jesus.\u00a0 The prophetic nature is unchallenged.\u00a0 To put it another way, by getting distracted over the human agency of Isaiah\u2019s authorship, do not become distracted and forget the divine agency of its authorship.\u00a0 Even if the human agent changed, the divine agent \u2013 God \u2013 most certainly did not.<\/p>\n<p>You will notice that in rebutting challenges with Isaiah that I didn\u2019t concern myself at all in defending single authorship?\u00a0 There are certainly many ways to defend a single author.\u00a0 My question, though, is why bother?\u00a0 The question about Isaiah is not one of authorship but of the reliability of its messianic prophecy.\u00a0 Why be distracted on a secondary issue that has no connection with any essential doctrine?\u00a0 Why give credibility to a perceived issue?\u00a0 The real burden is still on the skeptic to disprove the servant prophecies.<\/p>\n<p><em>Daniel<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The last Old Testament challenge to biblical reliability I want to cover is the Book of Daniel.\u00a0 The first common criticism is that Daniel should not be considered reliable because it is a much later book; possibly written only 150-100 years before the birth of Jesus.\u00a0 As an aside, I do hope you\u2019re notice a pattern with this particular accusation?\u00a0 The other criticism is that the <em>Book<\/em> Daniel wasn\u2019t written by the <em>prophet<\/em> Daniel.\u00a0 I\u2019ll take these in order.<\/p>\n<p>First, the argument on timing of the book \u2013 or any biblical text \u2013 can be the legitimate subject of debate.\u00a0 The accusation is that Daniel reflects a writing style of only 150-100 years B.C.\u00a0 The response is that there have been findings with similar writing styles that do, in fact, match a 600 B.C. date that puts it back in the timing of Daniel.\u00a0 Another piece of evidence supporting that earlier date is actually physical evidence.\u00a0 The copy of Daniel found in the Dead Sea Scrolls has been dated to 200 B.C. or earlier, so it obviously cannot match the claim of the later date.\u00a0 And that raises the most obvious response.\u00a0 <em>The prophecies in question are <u>still<\/u> 200 years <u>before<\/u> Jesus was born.<\/em>\u00a0 How does that date make them any less prophetic?<\/p>\n<p>Finally, consider the Magi that came to visit Jesus as an infant.\u00a0 They were following prophecies they had that told of a coming Jewish king.\u00a0 Where was this \u201cfrom the east\u201d from which they originated?\u00a0 Where in the world could they have gotten such prophecies?\u00a0 Who would be important enough to have his works in the archives of these Magi and still be considered important enough to pursue?\u00a0 The \u201ceast\u201d is obviously the region of the old Babylonian empire.\u00a0 If that is the case the prophecy that drove the Magi is almost certainly the same prophecies in Daniel \u2013 by Daniel \u2013 that had the Jews anticipating the imminent coming of the Messiah.\u00a0 Remember that Jewish scholars of the time were expecting Messiah around the time of Jesus based on Daniel\u2019s prophecies.<\/p>\n<p>This takes us to the second criticism, that Daniel didn\u2019t write Daniel.\u00a0 The Book of Daniel is the story of Daniel.\u00a0 No more.\u00a0 No less.\u00a0 That Daniel is the author is tradition commonly accepted as true, but it is hardly necessary.\u00a0 Under this tradition, Daniel perhaps used a scribe to record early chapters, recorded Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s story in chapter 4 either from the king or under inspiration and wrote the last 6 chapters himself.<\/p>\n<p>Personally, I have thought that this over-complicates the issue.\u00a0 I certainly agree with the claim that Daniel wrote the last six chapters.\u00a0 The dating questions have reasonable response.\u00a0 The appearance of the Magi certainly strengthens that claim.\u00a0 The chapters themselves claim his authorship.\u00a0 There is no reason to doubt them.\u00a0 Regardless of who the <em>scribe<\/em> was, I see no reason to doubt that Nebuchadnezzar was the author, under God\u2019s inspiration, of the 4<sup>th<\/sup> chapter.\u00a0 As far as the other 6 chapters of the first half of the book?\u00a0 First there is repeated but <em>very<\/em> true point that regardless of the human author, there is still divine inspiration that cannot be forgotten.\u00a0 Whether Daniel commissioned the stories or others at the time recorded them, there is God\u2019s authorship which is what matters.<\/p>\n<p>At the end of the day, both authorship and date are straw men arguments.\u00a0 The challenge is not upon us to defend them.\u00a0 Rather the burden is upon the skeptic to discredit the clear messianic prophecies and\u00a0 that how the match the time and life of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>There is an important point in all of this.\u00a0 Do not get pulled into defending things that do not need to be defended.\u00a0 Nor allow yourself to be distracted into arguing non-issues.\u00a0 Keep the focus where it belongs on the actual truth claims and the reality of the prophecies.\u00a0 The three examples discussed here are just\u00a0 three of many challenges made by skeptics, but they do illustrate much of the typical strategy taken by skeptics.\u00a0 More important, is that the responses are not difficult.\u00a0 The responses are so simple that it is shameful that such challenges could ever rattle anyone\u2019s faith \u2013 a blind faith.\u00a0 Indeed, a faith based on reason would certainly not be shaken by such arguments.\u00a0 God intended our faith to be based on reason.\u00a0 Do not be afraid to discover those reasons.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>For the second part on the reliability of the Bible, we are going to take a look another favorite subject that skeptics like to bring up; the authorship of the books in the Bible.\u00a0 The idea of this type of attack is that if the skeptic can make win the question who wrote a particular [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"Practical Apologetics - Reliability of the Bible, Part 2.  This week we look at authorship of the old testament.","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false},"categories":[3],"tags":[16,108,76,20,21,109,73,30,110,44,50],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p5ymfK-br","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/709"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=709"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/709\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":753,"href":"http:\/\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/709\/revisions\/753"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=709"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=709"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=709"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}